Supreme Court dismisses second amendment case.

Perhaps it is relevant to some. But not to those who have read the Miller, Heller, McDonald and most recently Caetano rulings in a sequential nature. Reading the rulings in sequential order, the united state supreme court has ruled the second amendment applies to firearm ownership rather than militia/military service, it is connected to the right of self defense with firearms and applies beyond the confines of the home, the reach of the second amendment applies to all states equally, and the second amendment applies to all implements that constitute bearable arms, even those that did not exist at the time of the ratification of the second amendment. The Caetano ruling took the matter one step further when the united state supreme court ruled unanimously that the "dangerous and unusual" provision of the Heller ruling had to be read as a whole, and not simply dangerous or unusual. Caetano held that all firearms were dangerous by their very nature, and yet could not be considered unusual simply because the first united states congress could not have foreseen their existence and widespread ownership.

Taken as a whole, by those more interested in facts that narrative, the united state supreme court has already ruled against prohibitions of so-called "assault weapons".

Perhaps such is believed to some. But to those who understand human nature for what it is, they recognize the united state supreme court is just as political as anyone and/or anything else. More accurately the lack of subsequent rulings was the result of uncertainty as to how the swing justice would actually side on such a matter. Said justice is no longer on the bench. One more conservative justice being elected to the united states supreme court, and such cases will likely be heard and ruled against.

 

LOL!!!!!

the supreme court has rejected EVERY single assault weapons ban case that has come their way.

they are not interested. even the court that upheld Heller rejected 2 AWB cases.

deal with it

 

The united state supreme court has also ruled that government cannot prohibit the legal ownership of firearms that are in common use for legal purposes. There is no standard under which firearms such as the AR-15 would qualify as being anything but in common use for legal purposes, as the majority of their legal owners are not committing crimes with them.

 

sorry but Caetano was a very narrow decision, very narrowly applied to just that case.

Not even the Gun Rights community consider the decision to be precedent that applies to all AWBs. Hence they keep suing.

 

Well Ronstar pointed out that only 60K own guns in NYC and there is a population of 8.4M meaning that only about 7% own guns so my guess was pretty accurate plus the GOP only holds 3 out of 51 seats in the city legislature.

 

Thanks for being honest, proving that Democrats feel it's their way or the highway, constitution be damned and if you don't like it get the hell out..

Opinions like yours are the ones causing division, not Trump.

 

Yes it's the way of the 93% and if the 7% don't like it they can leave. The constitution gives special rights to super majorities.

 

No it doesn't it gives every American the inalienable right to own and carry a gun anywhere he or she damn well wants.

 

Crap on the constitution because of hatred on inanimate objects , not one life will be saved but many likely will be lost.

Gun control kills.

 

Is that why every other white majority western nation has gun control and has between 1/4-1/5 the number of homicides per capita as the US?

 

As long as it's your super majority..

I bet you feel much differently about abortion in the south..

 

They don't have drug dealing gangs which cause 80% of America's gun crimes

 

Except the ruling being referred to in the above statement was the Heller ruling rather than the Caetano ruling. It was in the Heller ruling the united state supreme court first stated that government cannot prohibit legal ownership of firearms that are in common use for legal purposes.

 

What other constitutional rights should the city of New York be allowed to hold in contempt? Can it freely start arresting individuals who speak out against actions taken by the city, to punish them for saying the wrong thing? Can it dispense with the concept of speedy and public trials by impartial juries, and simply begin locking up individuals for decades for crimes they may or may not have committed?

 

Is racism the default position on the part of yourself?

The above statement on the part of yourself is nothing more than openly acknowledging that racial minorities are predisposed to breaking the law when they are in large numbers, and no longer make up the minority but rather the majority.

Essentially the claim on the part of yourself is that only white individuals can obey the law and not commit crimes.

 

its very easy to get a gun permit in NYC.

 

It's a description the type of nation the US is white Majority and westren. I pointed that out to show that in like countries the US lags behind.

Only that is simply not the case, it is showing that easy access to guns equals death. East Asia blows the rest of the world out of the water in lack of murders. Because no guns.

Only it's been proven that Asians and migrants have lower rates of crime than white Americans.

Nice try though trying to bend my words.

 

LOL! at when avoiding having ur law go to the supreme court is a 'victory'. You're basically saying 'I don't think it would've held up' and 'thank god we get to keep infringing on civil rights.'

'victory' indeed...

 

I wouldnt trust a nyc person with a gun! They are not the right kind of folks to trust with a gun.

Guns are for rural people who are 30 minutes away from a cop .

City people aint got enough sense to be trusted with a gun .

 

Why do you trot out this nonsense?
You are fully ware of the fact you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws in those countries and their lower rate of mass shootings.

 

@TOG 6, does the New York law mean that the entire city is a free fire zone other than ranges?

 

GUN homicides?

 

oh so city people and suburban people have no right to protect themselves?

gotcha

 

If someone starts attacking you (without a gun) in the middle of times square how would you be able to safely pull and use your gun and not end up shooting dozens of others in the process?

That is why it just makes no sense to have guns in such packed areas

 

Like the Ar 15 and standard capacity 30 round magazines.