Ammo For Sale

« « He gets a celery increase | Home | Headline win » »

At this point, I hope not

Will the SCOTUS take up an assault weapons ban? I don’t think the votes are there, right now. We’ve done such a good job of arguing that cosmetic features don’t mean much and, I think, the court would use that logic to say that since they’re not important, it’s OK to ban them.

8 Responses to “At this point, I hope not”

  1. Maxpwr Says:

    Actually the fact that something doesn’t mean much would be the reason not to ban them. We used to follow a “rational basis” test on laws. Maybe we still do. Sure, Congress could ban the color red paint, but if there is no rational basis to do so then it would likely not be Constitutional.

    A pistol grip found on a rifle and a pistol grip found on a pistol are both pistol grips. Why is one legal on a pistol but not on a rifle? They both serve the same purpose and therefore there is no difference. QED.

  2. The Jack Says:

    Which Means SCOTUS would be amenable to banning books based on their coves…

    Huh… yeah I’m not sure I’d want to take that bet.

  3. tahDeetz Says:

    This court has a history of rewriting law to whatever they damn well please. So it’s anybody’s guess, imo.

  4. JTC Says:

    Be interesting to see the logic and justification in banning something with no functional difference from other somethings without banning every something.

    Oh, wait…logic and justification is N/A in the neverlands of POTUS and SCOTUS; they GOTUS.

  5. HL Says:

    I would not trust the SCOTUS to tie its shoes at this point. Based on the outcome of the next POTUS election, this may be our high watermark for a generation or more.

  6. Ron W Says:

    Would SCOTUS apply “the equal protection of the laws” (14 th Amendment) like it did to REDEFINE marriage? That way, an AWB ban would LAWFULLY include government officials and agents.

  7. TS Says:

    Every time I see a court touch this they say, “yes, it’s ok to ban ‘dangerous or unusual’ weapons.” instead of answering the question: “do these gun qualify as ‘dangerous or unusual’ compared to protected guns.

  8. Ron W Says:

    TS, I always thought the Court liked precedent. In the first 2nd Amendment case in 1939, SCOTUS ruled against the right to carry a sawed off shotgun because it was not a weapon for militia use. As founder Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American”. George Mason said, “who is the militia?” It is the whole people, except a few public officials.” And he has a University bearing his name. I suppose if the ruling elites knew they, they would call for it to be renamed or torn down.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives