J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Interesting precedent set here. The judge specifically says military=style weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment per se, but it is up to individual states as whether or not to allow them in civilian hands.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-as...

The gun nuts will go, well, nuts over this. Good.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
That's the exact opposite of how the USSC has ruled in the past. Military style weapons are the first type of weapon that was specifically protected (in Miller) because they're most useful to a militia.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
There should be zero surprise. This is exactly what Heller said, which has been upheld is case after case at the appellate level and which the current Supremes have been adamant about not reviewing.

All the debate about what the 2nd amendment should mean is interesting. But from a practical standpoint, the issues is settled.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Interesting precedent set here. The judge specifically says military=style weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment per se, but it is up to individual states as whether or not to allow them in civilian hands.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-as...

The gun nuts will go, well, nuts over this. Good.


The GOP in South Carolina is considering a bill that authorizes the state to secede if the federal government starts seizing guns.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/382003-south-carolin...

Being nuts is officially in the rear view mirror
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
That's the exact opposite of how the USSC has ruled in the past. Military style weapons are the first type of weapon that was specifically protected (in Miller) because they're most useful to a militia.

Yeah, I think the intent of the 2nd is to allow for military rifles, but only where used by a regulated (reservist type) militia. But if we’re taking that legal angle, then the 2nd doesn’t protect buying any guns outside of a militia context (e.g. hunting, home defense).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
sbszine wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
That's the exact opposite of how the USSC has ruled in the past. Military style weapons are the first type of weapon that was specifically protected (in Miller) because they're most useful to a militia.

Yeah, I think the intent of the 2nd is to allow for military rifles, but only where used by a regulated (reservist type) militia. But if we’re taking that legal angle, then the 2nd doesn’t protect buying any guns outside of a militia context (e.g. hunting, home defense).

Heller covered that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
That's the exact opposite of how the USSC has ruled in the past. Military style weapons are the first type of weapon that was specifically protected (in Miller) because they're most useful to a militia.


Protected for the states to use in their militias, nowadays better known as the National Guard. Not in some shmoe's private hands.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
If you care at all about these issues, read Heller . Like many SCOTUS rulings, it is surprisingly readable and informative

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
sbszine wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
That's the exact opposite of how the USSC has ruled in the past. Military style weapons are the first type of weapon that was specifically protected (in Miller) because they're most useful to a militia.

Yeah, I think the intent of the 2nd is to allow for military rifles, but only where used by a regulated (reservist type) militia. But if we’re taking that legal angle, then the 2nd doesn’t protect buying any guns outside of a militia context (e.g. hunting, home defense).

Heller covered that.

It did, yes. I don’t agree with that one, obviously and find the reasoning spurious. We’ve just been discussing militia weapons as military rifles for war; Heller perverted that into handguns for home defense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.