LA times at it again

[dirtybird]

Supreme Court appears to give states, localities green light on gun controls - LA Times

 

[Birds Away]

Sickening....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

From the article: "By rejecting this case, the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters."

Let's see... what do those places have in common... Oh yeah, they're all either GFZ's or have severely restrictive gun laws. So basically nothing has been learned, and nothing has changed.

 

[Birds Away]

From the article: "By rejecting this case, the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters."

Let's see... what do those places have in common... Oh yeah, they're all either GFZ's or have severely restrictive gun laws. So basically nothing has been learned, and nothing has changed.

Not to mention the well known fact that Chicago's problem is all about assault weapons.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not to mention the well known fact that Chicago's problem is all about assault weapons.

Ahem! Assault weapons from Indiana...

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, ignoring the spin and paying attention to the headline, the paper was correct. The SCOTUS just upheld local rule making and gun bans. It'll be hard for them to weasel their way out in the future.

 

[BugI02]

Perhaps they await a test case of broader scope and applicability. Perhaps they are chicken ****.

Survey sez ...... B



ETA: Please note that they decided nothing and set no precedent themselves. They simply allowed a lower court ruling to stand without SCOTUS level review

 

[KG1]

It does appear that it is becoming increasingly harder to challenge a governments authority to regulate and or ban certain types of firearms through the courts on a constitutional basis. Disturbing trend.

It's almost like you can have your 2nd Amend rights but the government has the authority to decide what arms you can keep and where you can bear them. I'm not liking this at all.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It does appear that it is becoming increasingly harder to challenge a governments authority to regulate and or ban certain types of firearms through the courts on a constitutional basis. Disturbing trend.

It's almost like you can have your 2nd Amend rights but the government has the authority to decide what arms you can keep and where you can bear them. I'm not liking this at all.

You wouldn't think that a group of such highly educated men and women would have so much trouble with four little words... "shall not be infringed".

 

[Bfish]

It does appear that it is becoming increasingly harder to challenge a governments authority to regulate and or ban certain types of firearms through the courts on a constitutional basis. Disturbing trend.

It's almost like you can have your 2nd Amend rights but the government has the authority to decide what arms you can keep and where you can bear them. I'm not liking this at all.

I'm right there with you KG!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Advocates of bans on military-style weapons had pointed to mass shootings before this year and argued that rapid-fire rifles and handguns posed a special danger to public safety.
what are "rapid fire rifles and handguns"?
in my mind, that would be ANY gun you can shoot more than one round quickly.

 

[SSGSAD]

.....

 

[Doug]

Advocates of bans on military-style weapons had pointed to mass shootings before this year and argued that rapid-fire rifles and handguns posed a special danger to public safety.
what are "rapid fire rifles and handguns"?
in my mind, that would be ANY gun you can shoot more than one round quickly.

"Rapid fire" guns are anything other than single shot muzzle loaders.

 

[femurphy77]

If I had a bird. . . .that article would have had value. Everything else has already been said.