FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES ASSAULT WEAPONS NOT PROTECTED BY 2ND AMENDMENT

IT'S FUCKING HAPPENING

tribunist.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-declares-assault-weapons-are-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

Other urls found in this thread:

nydailynews.com/news/national/federal-court-assault-rifles-not-protected-amendment-article-1.2979133
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106
archive.is/UPWjV
archive.is/OH4LI
archive.is/I3yQg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
youtube.com/watch?v=O76ZRIU1cmw
youtube.com/watch?v=0lV5oicoEqs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

nydailynews.com/news/national/federal-court-assault-rifles-not-protected-amendment-article-1.2979133
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

There is literally zero reasons to have an semi-assault rifle.

>self-defense
Use hands or call the police

>authoritarian government
You mean like Drumpf? :^)

No but really this is a non-argument. It will never happen and even if it did. The gov has nukes, missiles, drones, tanks, etc.

ARCHIVED

Tribunist
archive.is/UPWjV
NY Daily
archive.is/OH4LI
NBC
archive.is/I3yQg

Jesus fucking christ.

they have no power over the states gun laws

ah yes, because tyranny never rose in the western world after all

>Muh founders never anticipated x!
I always find the courts interpretations such horse shit.
"Assault rifles" are semi-automatic rifles. That's it, just like every other semi-automatic firearm on the market.

But I cannot own a fully operational artillery gun with live shells, even though the British were fought with privately-owned cannons and naval gun ships, so the founders were fully aware of private ownership of fucking artillery guns.

>1934: You have no right to short-barreled shotguns, they're not military-type weapons thus not protected by the 2nd amendment
>2017: You have no right to assault weapons, they're military-type weapons thus not protected by the 2nd amendment

Fucking hell

this is so stupid

the retard chimps are basically afraid of how the gun looks like and dont understand its a semi automatic just like any other gun

this is just stupid, buy more guns guys

>Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was appointed by Reagan, joined the majority. In a surprise written statement, he lashed out at the gun industry.

>“As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say.”

>Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

>In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done.

>Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.”

Good thing the Ar-15 isnt an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle"

...

How the fuck is a militia supposed to fight without assault weapons? Handguns and knives?

>to act prophylactically

It's funny, because gun crime has always gone up anytime gun control is increased.

There's literally 2 issues I would actually Civil War over...

So...

>>self-defense
>Use hands or call the police

>knock on your door
>"HEY WHITE BOI HOMIE IMA GONNA REYYYP YO BITCH"
>starts hitting the door stronger and stronger
>door finally broken
>he enters with a glock in his hand
>you try to pull off your ancestral kangaroo karate technique
>get glocked
>wife blacked
>call the police
>"no mayyn he dindu nuffin"
>chimp creampies your wife
>throw boomerang at him
>he finishes you
>wife says he dindu nuffin and you were just racist

so some butthurt retards living in democrat-land took it to federal court so now they can be banned nationwide?

well done faggots

>wife says he dindu nuffin and you were just racist
>Convert to Islam and Honor Kill wife

>start of a healthy day
should actually read
>healty diet
In order to be grammatically identical.

>4th circuit

Second only to the 9th in gayness.

That's not exactly how it works, but this does mean that this argument has more potential to reach the supreme court to make a decision.

also inb4
>Muh founders never anticipated semi-automatic firearms!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

They were not retards. With the knowledge they had in their day, this same concept can easily be reasoned out to construct a full auto firearm.

I get so tired of the "FOUNDERS NEVER ANTICIPATED THINGS WITH GUNS!" arguments.

It goes
>traffic court
>local criminal court
>regional criminal court
>state criminal court
>federal criminal court
>state supreme court
>circuit court
>supreme court

Bin that knife, Amerifat!

If I recall correctly, Kennedy is at least okay on 2A stuff, and the dems are going to have their delay tactics shoot themselves in the foot when it stops cases from being heard until (((RBG))) or (((Breyer))) croaks.

And this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

hugs and kisses duh

i dont think the founders anticipated that america would degenerate into a society of school shooters.

Well, they probably didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to just let the niggers run wild.

They had nukes and tanks in Vietnam too

A federal district court can overrule a state supreme court on a federal issue - for instance in a habeas corpus proceeding. A federal court cannot overrule a state court on an issue of interpretation of state law.

>the founding fathers didn't know that the majority of people are dangerous dregs
Wrong.

But in terms of grandeur: district > state supreme

What if they are able to hold out until Trump is out of office?

Agreed. The founding fathers made it repeatedly clear in their writings (some more than others) the "danger of the mob"

>Use hands or call the police

How'd you go from "not using an evil assault weapon" to hands, for defense?

If someone has a knife, you're dead unless you have some form of firearm.

Can't.

The Republicans could block Obongo's appointment because they controlled congress, and thus the senate Judiciary committee, and thus could basically ignore Obongo's nomination and not give the guy hearings.

The dems hold a minority, are almost certainly not going to change that in 2018, and if they hold out for too long we can just Nuke them.

>speedy and fair trial
Not saying its impossible, but you have to pick your battles when playing with things like that.

A broad and ridiculous "assault weapon" ban isn't the thing to make that move on.

What the fuck is happening and why the fuck do libs want to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens?

What does that have to do with anything?

The Constitution had nothing in it that says, "any bad things that happen in the future with guns, that we didn't anticipate, automatically voids the second amendment"

You know, like how the tenth amendment essentially says, "Any powers we didn't cover and explicitly grant to the federal government, are automatically powers of the states". They had foresight there, obviously.

umm do not fucking comply?

Do you realize how long it takes for police to respond to calls? Hint, a long fucking time. Also, hands, who the fuck do you think I am? Jackie Chan? I'm not going to CQC a motherfucker with a gun. I'll stick with my concealed carry.

Rights are republican, not democratic ideals. If the were, then rights could be changed by a majority at any time

Why the fuck do you think, nigger?

Regardless we are still in the best time to own guns in 30 years

look at how cucked ca guns already are.. so they're not classified "assault weapons"
youtube.com/watch?v=O76ZRIU1cmw
youtube.com/watch?v=0lV5oicoEqs

Sure, as long as you don't live in Cali

Actually, I think republicans generally recognize Inalienable rights, which are rights derived from principals of justice and virtue and applicable to all people and generally unchanging, while leftists prefer Civil Rights, which are awarded by the Government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA coming from the cuck whose country gave all it's weapons over to the their government. Are you really that retarded? Your the reason why we want to ban people from coming here because all you outsiders are cuckified and dont know what being free truly is.

That's a nice Ruger SR40 you got there user.

Don't forget Warren vs D.C.

>[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.

The terms you're looking for are negative and positive rights.

>tfw in cali

What the fuck is an assault weapon???? Automatics are already banned from public use.

please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you please try to ban guns so i can kill you

But does it look scary?

It's a catchy lefty term that is defined as and I quote "not knowing what the fuck you are talking aout" .

That's the Trump effect
Thank you liberals
Hahahahahahahahahahaha

I kid you not, the two reasons I own multiple firearms is because (1) my father and (2) this court case. I learned that I need to defend myself and my family and not to rely on anyone else for my personal and my family's safety.

Where did OP go with all his ausie wisdom?

do you realize they still have't banned ropes, right?

I'm going to say this once, just once, for all you stupid knuckle-dragging fucks in the world: YOU CANNOT CONTROL AN ENTIRE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE WITH TANKS OR JETS OR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OR ANY OF THAT SHIT.

A FIGHTER JET CANNOT STAND ON STREET CORNERS AND ENFORCE NO-ASSEMBLY EDICTS. A FIGHTER JET CANNOT KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AT 3AM TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE FOR CONTRABAND MATERIALS OR ANTI-SOICAL PROPAGANDA.

A FIGHTER JET IS USELESS FOR MAINTAINING A POLICE STATE.

POLICE ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A POLICE STATE.

AND NO MATTER HOW MANY POLICE YOU HAVE, THEY ARE ALWAYS OUT-NUMBERED BY THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S VITAL FOR YOUR POLICE TO HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND YOUR PEOPLE TO HAVE NOTHING BUT THEIR LIMP DICKS.

BUT WHEN EVERY RANDOM PEDESTRIAN MIGHT HAVE A GLOCK JAMMED IN HIS WAISTBAND, KICKING DOWN THOSE DOORS BECOMES A LOT FUCKING RISKIER, LEST YOU CATCH A BULLET ON YOUR WAY IN.

DUMB. FUCK. HEADS.

Either the founders foresaw that their descendants would start shooting up schools with their arms, and considered this an acceptable sacrifice for protection from a tyrannical state, or they did not.

If the latter then the question arises, at which point does american society degenerate to such a state it can no longer function while upholding the constitution. At which point does the danger of a free society to itself become greater than that of a tyrannical government?

>semi-assault rifle

Technically no. You can buy a full auto anything as long as it is pre-ban and you have the proper paperwork. They are so cost prohibitive though, they might as well be illegal.

I'm not Ausie m80

Please excuse my dumbfuckory. The Ausie that posted below you I was just whipped up in rage to even comprehend what he said.

not mine, it was posted here

It's always darkest before the Don. They've won this one but as soon as it goes to the Supreme Court we will get gun freedom back. From NY to Cali, we will have a complete second amendment that all will be able to enjoy, no restrictions or bans.

So it wasn't Obama that came for your guns.

It was trump?

Lets work this out logically...

>The argument for owning assault weapons is to have armed citizens capable of defending themselves from corrupt police and a tyrannical government

You already let the police shit all over you and noone does anything about it.

The US government has been a tyrannical neo-fascist institution since Cheney and his neo-con goons took power.

No revolt either.

So let me get this straight... will you use your assault weapons to fight against tyranny, while theyre being banned by a tyranny??

Cant wait for the (you)s.

Once all the kids are dead.

This ruling applies to states within the 4th circuit.

The Supreme court can reverse the decision if it chooses.

Feel comfortable knowing that we will always have 300 years of history and precedent at our backs no matter what anyone trues to pull.

Its a self correcting cycle user, and you can be sure that they considered the consequences of a free nation.

>The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

The real danger is a "free" society that pacifies its citizens until they are no longer able to exercise their right to a free mans death. Therefore dooming his descendants to reap the crops of destruction that have long been overgrown.

Sweden for example.

Either way, it's a nice sidearm.

You've been rused by the infamous australian shitposters
If you see the Canadian or Australian flag on Sup Forums there's a good chance it's an absolute troll

10/10 top tier aussie funposting

No, it was an effort by rouge anti constitutional judges in a protest vote that will be struck down and punished in time

Real revolts like the Russian revolution don't begin until people are out of work and/or starving. As bad as the police state is in this country (and others like the UK) people are still living their daily lives. Unless they're personally effected (which is really just a small percentage of the country) they don't really care about encroaching tyranny.

So then what do you need assault weapons for?

>need

The Judicial branch, excluding SCOTUS, is the last piece of shit the Democrats still hold and they're using every last bit of their power they have left to fuck shit up. The Judicial branch is not interpreted very well in the constitution and because of this they have found many loopholes over the years to do whatever they'd like. I can see why Trump was focusing on term limits and such.

Because breakfast is a meme, it isn't part of a healthy diet.

Why even bother with complying unless you're going to take it out? I don't see police checking homes for compliance of restrictions.

Exactly.

>you don't need food after you haven't eaten for 5-8 hours and you just shit out whatever nutrients your body could absorb from the colon

Might as well get rid of the First, or restrict it, as they didn't anticipate radio, TV, and the internet.

Even then, homicides are majority handguns, not "assault rifles"

Bait: The thread

> Trump will be the US President who will ban guns
Pottery

...

Except he's not going to ban guns so what the fuck are you even talking about

This isn't considered an assault rifle.

Funny that Liberals will scream about how this shouldn't be a legal gun and claim it can take out cars and helicopters. B-but government.

Correct

Year
2014-12-31
Total Murders
11,961
Total by Firearms
8124
Handguns
5562
Rifles
248
Shotguns
262
Other guns
93
Firearms, type not stated
1959
Knives
1567
Blunt objects
435
Personal
660
Poison
7
Explosives
6
Fire
71
Narcotics
62
Drowning
14
Strangulation
89
Asphyxiation
96
Other Weapons or Weapons not Stated
830

Bill of Rights, not Needs, faggot

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.
>Clearly not what they banned

when will scotus repeal this

All this happened under Obama, mainly after Newtown.

>WV, VA, NC, SC

Those states are turning cucks though. Damn Reagan Republicans.

The fourth circuit only has jurisdiction over Maryland, NC, VA, West VA, and SC. Not only does this only affect literally five states, this still has to go to the supreme court for it to be literally anything. This thread is b8

Right, they wrote "assault weapon" which they define to be any semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip, magazine release, bayonet lug, 10+ round magazine, or shoulder thing that goes up.

Yeah, I don't think I saw a definition of what is banned. Just mentions M16, which isn't a civilian model.