People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

a reply to: AmericanRealist

That's an interesting angle to look at this from.

Of course, the main difference would be that the masterless Ronin of Japan's history, and indeed the peasants and monks, were all subjects of a monarchy/imperialism. The gun owners, militias, and former service persons in the US however, are not subjects to any king, and are ruled only by the democratically administrated republic that their collective will is supposed to shape by voting. Whereas the Japanese were expected to knuckle under, regardless of the outrageous imposition done to them by their Emperor, or the Regent of the time, the people of the United States of America actually have a constitution which forbids their leaders from taking measures to denude the people of any one of their rights, as defined by that document.

So, if anything, the American people have a greater reason to refuse to relinquish their arms, and therefore their rights, than did the people of feudal Japan. These rights are part of the foundation of the very nation upon which they stand, and so to abandon them or appease the leadership of the nation in any small way which leads to erosion of ANY of the rights outlined in the founding document, is to abandon the nation itself, and the principles upon which it was founded.

For all that the situation with the sword hunt can be said to resemble the current situation with guns and access to them in America, the ideological differences are huge. The American people could be said to be motivated by patriotism to keep a hold of their weapons, whereas it would have been an offence against the Empire to refuse to hand over ones sword in Japan in those days.

A very interesting comparison though AmericanRealist. Very interesting indeed.

This was a 2-1 decision.

It does not strike down the Maryland law in question.

It instructs a lower court to apply "strict scrutiny" to the law ... which will probably result in another appeal to the SC.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down

Strict Scrutiny

biggest problem, is nobody ever defined "assault weapon"

a reply to: pirhanna

Not to mention all those pesky assault knife crimes.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
In Iraq, under occupation, each household was permitted ONE Kalash.
So, Iraqi citizens have more rights than Americans?

If I'm not mistaken, you guys sure set them up with a better health care plan than you have...so it's all relative, right?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Maybe IED's and chemical weapons as well

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yay more guns!

Just one more step to making the world happier place

Yay a sarcastic, emotional post that has no basis in logic and zero cogent argument.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

What I don't get is that people are ok with others purchasing fire extinguishers even though there are fire departments, but you can't own a firearm because we have a police force.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You sir have an excellent understanding of our culture. If you're ever in the lone star state I'd buy you a shiner, a whiskey, and some bbq

originally posted by: SonOfThor

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yay more guns!

Just one more step to making the world happier place

Yay a sarcastic, emotional post that has no basis in logic and zero cogent argument.

I wouldn't say that. There's a lot of eye-rolling going on outside of your borders when you cheer your gun rights but wring your hands over the latest mass shootings. A certain cognitive disconnect going on there.
But, hey...yay more guns!

a reply to: SonOfThor

If I am ever in a position to take you up on that, I shall certainly do so.

The chances of me leaving the British Isles however, are slim. That being said, I do love good barbecue food.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Enjoy'em while you got them.

Story I'm hearing is that after Hilary is elected, she'll put Obama on the Supreme Court and that will be the end of the 2nd Amendment. Then, they will tell you that you have to turn your weapons in or go to jail. When a majority don't, they'll send in the jackboots to take the firearms AFTER they've killed you, your dog and your families and the more native born US Americans they kill (particularly the pesky Anglo/European stock) the more pleased and thrilled the Clinton/Obama Progressives will be. Now THAT's an answer to "white privilege!

And they've already started importing your replacements. Why else the Open Borders policy?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
I think you should try to legalize grenades, explosives, rpg's and missiles.

I agree. If you read the Second Amendment a certain way and are familiar with history, people should be able to own military grade weapons and equipment.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Here's the thing. Most people who are unfamiliar with firearms personally, IMO, are operating from a misinformed and fearful mindset. And there is something we can actually do about that. Take them shooting.

Everyone who does shoot knows how much fun it can be. And exposing them to that will a long way toward the understanding that it is not the thugs and redneck yahoos fest portrayed by the media. Seeing many other people, all showing geat respect and care on a firing range, will dispell their fearful imaginings, that have been programmed into them through watching propaganda fed to us.

Holding a weapon safely and becoming familiar with how it works, and shooting it, will go a long way toward dispelling the false notion that guns are the cause of violence and general danger. Heck, horseback riding is far more dangerous to participate in than shooting. But people who are unfamiliar with it know when they are around a horse and keep their distance. And they are still willing to try it, if they are convinced that someone knowledgable will be there to assist them.

If as many people who have talked their friends into going skiing, took them out to the range, much of the fear of the unknown, would be dissipated. There are things you have to learn to do it safely. But, there are never any media reports about that, to show that by far most people who do it, show the utmost respect for. And also no reports of ski lift dangers or horseback riding accidents. If there were, likely there would be a similar degree of trepidation surrounding those activities, as well. That is just human nature.

So why not capitalize on your own good relationships with folks who you know to be good people, to educate them a little, on something that is fundamentally important to our culture and way of life? You know you will have a good time too..... ;o)

Be well.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me


" There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions." "



This is extactly what gun control is. Centralizing gun ownership is perfect example of control ... Stefphan is a tool as are you for posting a contradictary quote

a reply to: AmericanRealist

It's about time the 2nd amendment was protected.

With all the "terrorists" either now on our shores or soon to come to our shores, gun owners need to be able to protects their homes.

If you don't want firearms, no problem. Don't have them. That's just more available for the law-abiding and responsible citizens to obtain.

When SHFT happens, and it's coming this year, don't forget to defend your home and loved ones with your broom. I suggest tossing it at those who come to harm all in your homes.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

A lot of that eye rolling is due to emotional response and lack of knowledge. I will be in Ontario this summer with my podcast for a charity shooting competition. I will be bringing two restricted firearms with me, my Sig P226 and my AR-15. Granted, I will have to leave the "scary" 30 round and 18 rounds magazines behind for smaller capacity magazines, but oh well. With all my paperwork in order, every time I've crossed the border armed the Canadian border folks have been incredibly friendly and welcoming to this armed American.

Point is the issue of defense against tyranny and self protection is the core of the right to bear arms, in my country, yours, and elsewhere. Mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of a percent of homicides (that percentage went up a little when the media changed the definition of mass shooting). Most homicide deaths in this country occur as a result of the drug prohibition / gang violence.

You just proved my point. The cognitive disconnect is people like you who have no statistics or knowledge to make an argument. I've posted in other firearms threads with the citations and don't have time to copy them here during my lunch break, but according to FBI data, at most, semi-automatic rifles that some call "assault weapons" have been used in a fraction of a percent of homicides. There are millions of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in circulation by recent estimates in the US - your emotional reaction doesn't account for the 99.9% of these firearms that aren't used in crimes.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: DAVID64

You go for it mate.

I think you should try to legalize grenades, explosives, rpg's and missiles.

Have your very own launcher today! Just don't put any actual explosives in it without being licensed.

Title II weapons, or NFA firearms are designations of weapons in the United States of America, under that country's National Firearms Act.

They are weapons requiring a Type 1 Federal Firearms License as well as a Class III Special Occupation Tax to sell, and an ATF Form 4 with $200 tax stamp to purchase[1]). The restrictions apply to certain firearms, explosive munitions, and other devices which are federally regulated by the (NFA).[2][3] Any violation of the NFA is a felony punishable by up to 10

But you know, truth be told, most of us have no interest in destructive devices of that nature. We just use fireworks to have fun.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
You just proved my point. The cognitive disconnect is people like you who have no statistics or knowledge to make an argument. I've posted in other firearms threads with the citations and don't have time to copy them here during my lunch break, but according to FBI data, at most, semi-automatic rifles that some call "assault weapons" have been used in a fraction of a percent of homicides. There are millions of legally owned semi-automatic rifles in circulation by recent estimates in the US - your emotional reaction doesn't account for the 99.9% of these firearms that aren't used in crimes.

We recently had a school shoot-up...it's a big deal. You have them on a regular basis...yawn...what else is on the tube? But you are missing the big picture in what I am saying about cultures, and there is the cognitive disconnect. You just proved my point.
I'm glad you are visiting the Great Pink North, we like to shoot stuff on ranges and in the field, too. Try Flying Monkeys Beer while you're here, eh?

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Go and learn the 2nd. There is no mention of restrictions.