Is This The Beginning Of The End For Gun Control ?

Is This The Beginning Of The End For Gun Control well I for one hope so. Many years ago the gun control post on ATS were one of the reasons I joined as some of the post about guns were what appeared to me to have been written by people watching cartoons or some action packed fantasy for gun information. Especially some of the politicians who managed to get on the MSN. Anyway we will have to wait and see where this goes but I expect there will be all kinds of clamoring one way or the other.

If you haven't heard yet, Firearms Policy Coalition has filed what may be one of the most critical petitions for writ of certiorari for Marylanders and possibly gun owners in general in the case Bianchi v. Frosh.

The case itself centers around the Maryland "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB), also known as SB281 or the Firearms Safety Act of 2013.

But before we dive into the law itself, let's look at the question being proposed to the Supreme Court in this writ of certiorari. The question presented is: "Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a type of "Arms" that are in common use for lawful purposes?"

The way this question is asked, we can see that if decided in favor of gun owners, the overturning of the Maryland AWB would be an unprecedented victory for gun owners nationwide. A Repudiation of assault weapon bans would free states like California, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey from their tyrannical state governments who've imposed their versions of this "Assault Weapon Ban." FPC's Adam Kraut affirmed that position saying, "This case presents the Court with an ideal vehicle to both address the scope of protected arms and constitutionally infirm analysis applied by these recalcitrant lower courts."

The petition correctly describes the term "Assault Weapons" as a "pejorative and inaccurate label for a category of common semi-automatic firearms." Then quoting directly from Heller goes on to describe those same firearms as "in common use" and "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

Maryland's AWB is an assortment of inconsistent rules and regulations thought up by bureaucrats in Annapolis who have little understanding of firearms they seek to regulate. A few examples of inconsistencies: AK pattern rifle chambered in 7.62x39? Banned. AK pattern rifle chambered in 5.45x39? Good to go. AK Pistol in 7.62x39? Good to go. The only difference between the banned rifle and pistol? The stock.

It also bans the AR15 and other "Scary" looking rifles but allows AR15s that conform to a Heavy Barrel Profile, or HBAR. It also allows for rifles that are functionally identical to the AR15, like the Ruger Mini 14.

Ultimately, we won't know if the Supreme Court will hear the case until sometime in 2022, as The Supreme Court will hear it in their 2022 session. But the chances are good for the Court to take this case up. Many of the Justices have signaled that they're ready to hear 2nd Amendment cases. If the recent NYSRPA v. Bruen is any indication, we will likely see them tackle more gun rights issues that have far-reaching implications.

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: 727Sky
We can only hope.

I can't wrap my head around lefti leaning civilians wanting to take guns from law abiding citizens.
It is another reason I consider them to be ignorant bobble heads that just regurgitate what the MSM tells them.

If you remove the guns from law abiding citizens, who will be then be the only ones with guns?
Those who don't care about laws and will break them using a gun.

Look at what happened in Deerfield, Illinois. They passed a law banning assault rifles. But that was already done with two pieces of legislation, one in the 1930'2 and the other in the 1960's. There were no assault weapons left to ban, but that didn't stop them. In fact they listed the exact assault rifles they were banning. On that list were some semi-automatic rifles, some bolt action rifles, some pump shotguns, some semiauto handguns, even some revolvers...in an assault rifle ban...

The main proponent of the law said it was written to take military grade weapons off the streets. Not one single weapon on their extensive list is currently being used by any military force on Earth. But these are military grade assault rifles...even the shotguns and revolvers...

a reply to: Quadrivium

You are right, i suspect something similar is going on with the gun control narrative... If only the republicans have guns, won't work. So It's time the dems get armed up. when the SHTF the casualties are high on both sides... There is one breed that actually wants that and they are not dems, they are not CCP, they are globalist and see you all as dumb sheep falling for their divide and rule game.
if we as humans can't see beyond their little game and find a way to coexistwe deserve what's coming....

a reply to: 727Sky

Key phrase here will be how the States alter the meaning of: "law-abiding". After all, as of today, many states are not allowing people who haven't gotten a shot in the arm their Constitutional Rights. How difficult would it be for these same States to infer that a non-vaccinated person isn't a "law-abiding" citizen?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If I remember correctly, they prohibited the guns that "look scary".

Didn't ya hear, we don't need gun control anymore. Some States NY and CA, so far, are formulating laws to allow citizens to sue gun manufacturers. The same law that allows citizens to sue abortions doctors is going to be used to shut down gun manufacturers. Wait and see. Might even be able to sue ammunition manufacturers also.

It's always appeared to me from the outside that any mention of gun control is political suicide. Is that changing now?

originally posted by: Granitebones
It's always appeared to me from the outside that any mention of gun control is political suicide. Is that changing now?

Not in a socialist democratic controlled strong hold.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: 727Sky

Key phrase here will be how the States alter the meaning of: "law-abiding". After all, as of today, many states are not allowing people who haven't gotten a shot in the arm their Constitutional Rights. How difficult would it be for these same States to infer that a non-vaccinated person isn't a "law-abiding" citizen?

Well first they would have to legislate getting the "vaccine" a LAW. Then if you don't, you wouldn't be law abiding.

As of this writing, if you CHOOSE to not be jabbed, then you are not "mandate abiding" I suppose, and so what if you aren't.

Currently, mandates, proclamations, edicts, and orders are not LAW. They are merely guidelines that DO NOT apply to The People DIRECTLY.

Hence the fact that it's agencies, organizations and businesses that they target to coerce The People to bend to their will.

Those states that are violating Constitutional rights are able to do so because of sheer apathy and willful ignorance.

We're going to have to take responsibility for our futures sooner or later or this experiment is surely over.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: 727Sky
We can only hope.

I can't wrap my head around lefti leaning civilians wanting to take guns from law abiding citizens.
It is another reason I consider them to be ignorant bobble heads that just regurgitate what the MSM tells them.

If you remove the guns from law abiding citizens, who will be then be the only ones with guns?
Those who don't care about laws and will break them using a gun.

I live in Mexico where legal firearm ownership is extremely difficult by design.

Of course, you know who have the guns here. Hell, you can't even carry an axe handle behind the seat of your truck without risking getting in trouble. (Workaround: a hardball, a glove and a bat look much less nefarious.)

So, yeah, it's the malamdros, the criminals who have the weapons and the law abiding citizens who are left vulnerable.

Hint: Only had guys like gun control laws.

a reply to: 727Sky

Hey. Just to say...regulate all this nonsense ..but I can buy a silencer/suppressor legal in Michigan. Now. Today.

So, how's that for a whacked ideology?😖

This type of threads always reminds me of a scene from the game Mass Effect :
Clerk at desk : You must leave your weapons here.
Commander Sheppard: I will leave one round. Now , where do you want it ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
...
Commander Sheppard: I will leave one round. Now , where do you want it ?

Perfect response. Maybe I'll get to use it one day.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Quadrivium

You are right, i suspect something similar is going on with the gun control narrative... If only the republicans have guns, won't work. So It's time the dems get armed up. when the SHTF the casualties are high on both sides... There is one breed that actually wants that and they are not dems, they are not CCP, they are globalist and see you all as dumb sheep falling for their divide and rule game.
if we as humans can't see beyond their little game and find a way to coexistwe deserve what's coming....

Take your thought process and read my post again.
The left is doing the work of the CCP in this country.
They are trying to make it where anyone can just step in without a fight.
By all means, if you are a law abiding citizen, ARM UP. That way when you realize who the enemy really is, you can join in the fight.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Didn't ya hear, we don't need gun control anymore. Some States NY and CA, so far, are formulating laws to allow citizens to sue gun manufacturers. The same law that allows citizens to sue abortions doctors is going to be used to shut down gun manufacturers. Wait and see. Might even be able to sue ammunition manufacturers also.

there is one difference here. ONE is a guaranteed right,the other is IMPLIED. Suing a manufacturer,can be argued that it takes the ability of a gun owner to get ammo and use their weapon,therefore abridiging the 2nd.

a reply to: yuppa

It holds no weight. If a Lexus driver does a hit and run on your mother for example, would you win a lawsuit against Toyota/Lexus?

Of course not.

Fantastical dreams from the leftists.