Will SCOTUS take up Snope v Brown - assault weapons ban by states

[Saltwater60]

This one could get interesting to say the least. I think it’s no doubt they are in common circulation, not overly dangerous or u que, and certainly weapons of war( not that AR-15’s are that) were never banned based on history text and tradition. Thinking logically a sharped carbine or a lever action rifle compared to a muzzle loader is the same difference as a hunting rifle to these guns and none of those were banned.
I personally think now is the time for scotus to take this on and deal a blow to the anti 2A crowd saying these are protected under 2A because it’s so early on in the political arena with another election being 2 years away at this point.
I read an article where the Maryland judge/ruling says they are not well suited for hunting or self defense especially in tight quarters. This is easily disputed because the many calibers available for hunting and the military uses these rifles in a similar format for breaching homes and close quarters. They can no longer have it both ways.

Snope v. Brown (24-203)

Supreme Court case (24-203) — tracked on SCOTUSblog.

www.scotusblog.com

 

[libertysnake]

This one could get interesting to say the least. I think it’s no doubt they are in common circulation, not overly dangerous or u que, and certainly weapons of war( not that AR-15’s are that) were never banned based on history text and tradition. Thinking logically a sharped carbine or a lever action rifle compared to a muzzle loader is the same difference as a hunting rifle to these guns and none of those were banned.
I personally think now is the time for scotus to take this on and deal a blow to the anti 2A crowd saying these are protected under 2A because it’s so early on in the political arena with another election being 2 years away at this point.
I read an article where the Maryland judge/ruling says they are not well suited for hunting or self defense especially in tight quarters. This is easily disputed because the many calibers available for hunting and the military uses these rifles in a similar format for breaching homes and close quarters. They can no longer have it both ways.

Snope v. Brown (24-203)

Supreme Court case (24-203) — tracked on SCOTUSblog.

www.scotusblog.com

I don't understand why it matters if they're weapons of war. Isn't the entire purpose of 2A to give power for regular people to wage war against a tyrannical government, should they chose the government has become tyrannical?

 

[Zerex]

Dec 13th is the day..........

SCOTUS Sets Conference Date for the Snope v. Brown Assault Weapon Ban Case - The Truth About Guns

The United States Supreme Court has set an official conference date of December 13 to decide if the High Court will hear Snope v. Brown, a case directly challenging Maryland’s assault weapon ban, addressing whether states can legally ban semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, commonly owned...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[Cooolone]

The use of verbage, ie, Weapons of War is akin to the Progressives use of words used to illicit a prescribed response. Assault Rifle!

Weapons of War... Make no mistake what the 2A intended then as the founders didn't mean to say 16oz padded gloves!

Shall not be infringed is the only wording requiring understanding, and not interpretation, not defining... Just simply understand and accept exactly what it means!

Is consistently befuddling to me, the one Right written with explicit instructions constantly being the one trampled and bastardized!

 

[Acer-m14]

where in the 2A says Common , Dangerous, Semi Dangerous ..

ARMS .. Anything you can get your hands on or make ..

 

[Grimscale]

I still consider "common use" to be only one step removed from "what was available at the time of the founding".
It implies that only technology that managed to become "common" before Heller is okey dokey, but anything after can (and likely will) be banned.

And "Dangerous and unusual" is almost as bad.
It's a gun. It's DESIGNED to be dangerous. Not necessarily toward the operator, but that is always a risk. Once you start down the path of "we have to make sure it's safe for the operator" you are on the first steps of the slippery slope of "nanny state".

As for the conference date: Should we assume the worst since they are set to conference this case on a Friday? And Friday the 13th at that?

SCOTUS has had NUMEROUS chances to finally put this tragedy to rest. At best we get a little pittance here and there, but then they turn a blind eye when States thumb their nose at SCOTUS.

This lion has no teeth. I expect they will deny.

 

[jimc]

I suspect the BEST that could come out of this is that the states can't ban firearms like AR's, but they can restrict 'dangerous' features like a pistol grip or the widely feared bayonet lug.

I think we will end up exactly where we are today, or with even more restrictions. I have zero expectation of being able to purchase a wood stocked 10/22 with a threaded barrel. All the other states are gaining rights back due to Bruen, but NY -the state that actually LOST THE CASE- has added more restrictions.

 

[Cooolone]

Bruen invalidates many of these Progressive Ideas...

If it does NOT apply to other Rights, then it cannot be applied to the 2nd!!!

Common use, Need, Training, etc... Are by Brien ALL Unconstitutional!

Tell me where you require training and certification in order to Vote! Or claim other Rights!? Bruen made clear the Two Tier encumbrances put in place in order to exercise a Right, here the 2nd, are artificial and intended only to Defacto Deny that Right!

What's so hard onto understand...?

Problem is you need to be Denied First, in order to have standing, if you want to challenge the law! Municipalities will do all they can to prevent any case from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom! But nothing changes unless these ridiculous Liberal Progressive policies and efforts are put in check!

 

[Robin]

Every wheel lock, flintlock, cap lock, lever action, bolt action, semiautomatic action, rifle and shotgun was, is a weapon of war. Bow and arrow for that matter.
Robin

 

[spat]

I don't understand why it matters if they're weapons of war. Isn't the entire purpose of 2A to give power for regular people to wage war against a tyrannical government, should they chose the government has become tyrannical?

The original SCOTUS 2A decision (Miller) said that *only* weapons of war are protected.

 

[Tisto]

 

[Saltwater60]

Let’s see where this goes. Second court says we have machine guns.

Fed Court Strikes Down Machine Gun Ban!

The decision in United States v. Brown marks the second time a court has struck down such a ban, raising questions about the future of automatic firearm regulations in the U.S.

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[Cavalry]

This is a good first step. I am serious when I state this, but I believe based on the history of privateers in revolutionary times, that all arms held by private citizens are equal to that of standing armies. The 2nd if interpreted in that matrix includes private ownership of any and all arms akin to the government, up to and including nuclear weapons.
In a nutshell, if you can afford it, you can have it.

 

[FP1201]

Let’s see where this goes. Second court says we have machine guns.

Fed Court Strikes Down Machine Gun Ban!

The decision in United States v. Brown marks the second time a court has struck down such a ban, raising questions about the future of automatic firearm regulations in the U.S.

www.gunsamerica.com

If they abolish the ATF, will we still need Form 4 and Form 1?

 

[Cavalry]

If they abolish the ATF, will we still need Form 4 and Form 1?

Yes, but they will be called something else and go to a different agency. The only way to truly regain lost rights is to overturn gun laws of '34,'68,'86 etc.

 

[Old Jalopy]

I highly doubt we will ever see NICS gone. Even if the whole country went Constitutional Carry and states with laws requiring licenses for long guns were ruled the licensing was unConstitutional, we'd still have to pass a BG check, and they would add some bullshit to that which 80% of the population would not pass. Like, "Were you ever in detention in school?", "Have you ever urinated in public?" . Just a note on that last one, it would be a trick question, because if you hunt public land and have had to whizz you have whizzed in public.
There would have to be a law passed that stated once again it shall not be infringed, altered, modified, or otherwise hindered upon.

Treacherous are the antis! Mind what they have done in past times! Or forever will they still dominate our destiny. <--- In my best Yoda voice.

 

[spat]

I highly doubt we will ever see NICS gone. Even if the whole country went Constitutional Carry and states with laws requiring licenses for long guns were ruled the licensing was unConstitutional, we'd still have to pass a BG check, and they would add some bullshit to that which 80% of the population would not pass. Like, "Were you ever in detention in school?", "Have you ever urinated in public?" . Just a note on that last one, it would be a trick question, because if you hunt public land and have had to whizz you have whizzed in public.
There would have to be a law passed that stated once again it shall not be infringed, altered, modified, or otherwise hindered upon.

Treacherous are the antis! Mind what they have done in past times! Or forever will they still dominate our destiny. <--- In my best Yoda voice.

Just a law that strips the immunity from civil liability for anyone attempting to infringe on the 2A would go a long way. And make them pay the legal fees.

"State legislator proposed a BS law, everyone in the state can sue them personally for it". There is a stampede of ambulance chasers lining up to find a plantiff for the suit.

 

[Old Jalopy]

Just a law that strips the immunity from civil liability for anyone attempting to infringe on the 2A would go a long way. And make them pay the legal fees.

"State legislator proposed a BS law, everyone in the state can sue them personally for it". There is a stampede of ambulance chasers lining up to find a plantiff for the suit.

This would go a long, LONG way to stopping the shit these anti DB's pull.

 

[Grimscale]

Just a law that strips the immunity from civil liability for anyone attempting to infringe on the 2A would go a long way. And make them pay the legal fees.

But not just the 2A.
Anyone attempting to infringe on ANY of the enumerated Rights.

The Republicans aren't blameless in that game either.
ALL politicians must be held accountable for their actions.

Violating the Constitution is NOT in their job description!

 

[Darth]

This is a good first step. I am serious when I state this, but I believe based on the history of privateers in revolutionary times, that all arms held by private citizens are equal to that of standing armies. The 2nd if interpreted in that matrix includes private ownership of any and all arms akin to the government, up to and including nuclear weapons.
In a nutshell, if you can afford it, you can have it.

I've never understood the "you think people should be able to own NUKES too!?" gotcha.

So many gun owners kowtow on this one too. I always answer "yes", because what is currently stopping someone?

Am I to believe, if you are obtaining a nuclear weapon to commit an act of genocide, you're going to be swayed by a law that says "you can't own that, it's illegal?"

Wat???

 

[Robin]

We the people are the arbiters of what is constitutional, not lawyers and judges, they are to facilitate our demands. Sadly, we all no what it will take to clean the sludge from this particular canal and draining this particular sector of the swamp.
Robin

 

[Criticalt]

I've never understood the "you think people should be able to own NUKES too!?" gotcha.

So many gun owners kowtow on this one too. I always answer "yes", because what is currently stopping someone?

Am I to believe, if you are obtaining a nuclear weapon to commit an act of genocide, you're going to be swayed by a law that says "you can't own that, it's illegal?"

Wat???

It's funny that people don't know you can own a cannon and a tank in all 50 states.
These facts would make an anti gunners head explode.
When is the last time you heard of a tank or cannon being used in a crime in NYS?
You can buy a tank or cannon for just a couple thousand dollars, an extremely tiny fraction of a functioning nuke.

 

[Criticalt]

Unfortunately Snopes would not help NYS.
We currently are allowed to own MSRs.
We have a magazine and features ban.
For instance.....we can have handguns, but cannot have suppressors. Is that a handgun ban?
Snopes only targets states who are completely banning "assault weapons"...
.like Illinois and Maryland.
There is no mention of magazine limits or features in Snopes.
A semi auto handgun without a red dot, night sights and a mag well flare is STILL a semi auto handgun.

 

[Vinson57]

The 2A tyranny is ended when they say the 2A makes it NOT a states right and all state gun laws and all the lawsuits they propagate are terminated.

When did something like this happen before:

Gay Marriage legalized and we never heard about it again.

 

[FP1201]

Unfortunately Snopes would not help NYS.
We currently are allowed to own MSRs.
We have a magazine and features ban.
For instance.....we can have handguns, but cannot have suppressors. Is that a handgun ban?
Snopes only targets states who are completely banning "assault weapons"...
.like Illinois and Maryland.
There is no mention of magazine limits or features in Snopes.
A semi auto handgun without a red dot, night sights and a mag well flare is STILL a semi auto handgun.

SCOTUS is hinting at hearing three cases and moving the appointment dates which means they are very interested in these cases and may not only accept them, but in an expeditiously fashion.
Registered (closed window) MSR's aka "Assault Weapons" are Legal, but cannot be transferred within the State, subsequent rifles are illegal without modifications to eliminate them from the description of what constitutes and assault weapon.
NY Legislature will dog pile on all the shit they can ahead of any rulings or overturning of Laws/Regulations, so any portion(s) they loose will still have enough wins to keep their thumb over the Subjects of the State.
It's going to be a fun ride, one I think we'll come out on top of, so don't take stock in the pundits on youtube; they're not necessarily a damn bit more expert that those who've been right in it for years.

 

[spat]

I've never understood the "you think people should be able to own NUKES too!?" gotcha.

So many gun owners kowtow on this one too. I always answer "yes", because what is currently stopping someone?

Am I to believe, if you are obtaining a nuclear weapon to commit an act of genocide, you're going to be swayed by a law that says "you can't own that, it's illegal?"

Wat???

You *can* own nukes privately.

You just don't have the means to acquire then.

If Musk wanted one, there's nothing stopping him legally today.

Sure, there would be some paperwork, but there's a 4473 for a deer rifle too.

Now, nobody is going to sell him the fossils material, but he could just buy the Pantex Corp that makes all the nukes for rhe government.

Way too many people don't understand that our nukes are made by a private corporation, so at one point all of them were owned by a private corporation and not the government.

 

[Darth]

You *can* own nukes privately.

You just don't have the means to acquire then.

If Musk wanted one, there's nothing stopping him legally today.

Sure, there would be some paperwork, but there's a 4473 for a deer rifle too.

Now, nobody is going to sell him the fossils material, but he could just buy the Pantex Corp that makes all the nukes for rhe government.

Way too many people don't understand that our nukes are made by a private corporation, so at one point all of them were owned by a private corporation and not the government.

Really? I think they'd be a destructive device...

But I 100% agree as to the reason people don't get them is the acquiring side. I've always thought that.

I'm a 2A absoluteist.

"So a 5 year old should be able to..."

Yes. I know, shudder to think people might have to do their jobs as parents, but yes is the answer, for me.

 

[spat]

Really? I think they'd be a destructive device...

But I 100% agree as to the reason people don't get them is the acquiring side. I've always thought that.

I'm a 2A absoluteist.

"So a 5 year old should be able to..."

Yes. I know, shudder to think people might have to do their jobs as parents, but yes is the answer, for me.

Oh, I'm sure they'd be a destructive device.

But destructive devices are no more illegal than suppressors, and I have one of those sitting in my safe right now.

I did say there would be paperwork.

And I didn't say there were currently no infringements.

Just that they weren't technically prohibited.

So, yea, you'd need that $200 tax stamp on every round for your M29 Davy Crockett. But that's no different than every HE round for your M203. There are lots of those in private hands.

 

[Criticalt]

SCOTUS is hinting at hearing three cases and moving the appointment dates which means they are very interested in these cases and may not only accept them, but in an expeditiously fashion.
Registered (closed window) MSR's aka "Assault Weapons" are Legal, but cannot be transferred within the State, subsequent rifles are illegal without modifications to eliminate them from the description of what constitutes and assault weapon.
NY Legislature will dog pile on all the shit they can ahead of any rulings or overturning of Laws/Regulations, so any portion(s) they loose will still have enough wins to keep their thumb over the Subjects of the State.
It's going to be a fun ride, one I think we'll come out on top of, so don't take stock in the pundits on youtube; they're not necessarily a damn bit more expert that those who've been right in it for years.

Yep, and this can take decades.
I believe the 3 cases you're referring to, Snopes, the magazine case....forget the name, and another that are in conference.....have a very slim chance of being granted Cert this session. They have been overlooked 2x since Jan 10th. According to Mark Smith, there is less than a 5% chance they will be granted this time.....but there IS a chance.

 

[turbobike]

The Real problem with current SCUTUS is they are only taking 60-70 cases per year...Historically past SCUTUS's took 200+ cases...
This generation SCOTUS has gotten way behind on their duty.. meanwhile US Citizens rights are trampled...