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 - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

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 - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

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 13th to decide if the High Court will hear Snope v. Brown.

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]