# US Supreme Court lets stand assault weapons ban, My suggestion:



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

In the wake of the Orlando shootings SCOTUS has affirmed the decision of those states that have banned assault weapons. This will pave the way for Complete elimination of, and probably even seizure of these once "grandfathered" weapons from within their borders. It is a green light for the left and gives them a blank check where assault rifles are concerned. California is already moving to ban the M1 carbine, Ruger Ranch Rifles and similarly "featureless" rifles.

I, for one, do not like the idea of any law enforcement, government agent or National Guard member being more heavily armed than the citizens they are expected to serve and protect.

If we do need to change the second amendment. We only need to add the language that "*Except in times of invasion by a foreign power, no soldier, Police Officer, State, local or Federal agent shall be allowed to possess a weapon with capabilities any different than those allowed normal citizens in the particular state in which they reside ."*

Let these governments explain why *they* need better firepower for a change.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sault-weapons-bans-in-place.html?intcmp=hpbt2


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

It isn't any different then cooking and eating utensils making people fat, you don't see anyone banning those,( double standard is the liberal way)


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The November elections will mean the end of many freedoms if Hillary is elected. Not just the right to keep and bear arms.
Was Trump my choice in the primary? No.
But I love this country too much to refuse to vote for him.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Did they rule on it or did they refuse the case?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

It just says they left in place a lower court ruling. They probably rejected the challenge by not hearing it.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> It just says they left in place a lower court ruling. They probably rejected the challenge by not hearing it.


gottcha

I agree these laws are stupid and do absolutely no good in preventing gun violence nor do they keep criminals from obtaining said weapons. I don't like the lower courts ruling and I don't like the fact that the supreme court denied hearing the case but ultimately I believe its the fault of the citizens of these states for continuing to elect the politicians that make these laws to begin with.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> In the wake of the Orlando shootings SCOTUS has affirmed the decision of those states that have banned assault weapons. This will pave the way for Complete elimination of, and probably even seizure of these once "grandfathered" weapons from within their borders. It is a green light for the left and gives them a blank check where assault rifles are concerned. California is already moving to ban the M1 carbine, Ruger Ranch Rifles and similarly "featureless" rifles.
> 
> I, for one, do not like the idea of any law enforcement, government agent or National Guard member being more heavily armed than the citizens they are expected to serve and protect.
> 
> ...


I agree they should need to explain why they need them. My only problem is even if they have them locked up they'll still hack access and we wont.


NotTooProudToHide said:


> Did they rule on it or did they refuse the case?


Sent from Tapatalk (aka Uranus)


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> In the wake of the Orlando shootings SCOTUS has affirmed the decision of those states that have banned assault weapons. This will pave the way for Complete elimination of, and probably even seizure of these once "grandfathered" weapons from within their borders. It is a green light for the left and gives them a blank check where assault rifles are concerned. California is already moving to ban the M1 carbine, Ruger Ranch Rifles and similarly "featureless" rifles.
> 
> I, for one, do not like the idea of any law enforcement, government agent or National Guard member being more heavily armed than the citizens they are expected to serve and protect.
> 
> ...


I know you and others on this forum are LEO's or former LEO's but I disagree with your ideas in regards to local laws and the armament for LEO's and the National Guard. The criminals, terrorists, and madmen of this world are going to find ways to kill others whether it be with "assault" weapons, handguns, shotguns, bombs, knives, tanks, cars, bulldozers, or any other number of things. In my state and in every state around me with the exception of Illinois I can legally conceal carry a firearm and I do but if its me or a family member/friend in the location where somebody has decided to commit mass murder then I want to see police dressed in military gear carrying real assault weapons arrive in an armored vehicle kick down doors and take the mofo out. I don't believe that LEO's should be handicapped in that regards, you have a tough job to do and I believe that you should have all the tools available to help you do that job.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I know you and others on this forum are LEO's or former LEO's but I disagree with your ideas in regards to local laws and the armament for LEO's and the National Guard. The criminals, terrorists, and madmen of this world are going to find ways to kill others whether it be with "assault" weapons, handguns, shotguns, bombs, knives, tanks, cars, bulldozers, or any other number of things. In my state and in every state around me with the exception of Illinois I can legally conceal carry a firearm and I do but if its me or a family member/friend in the location where somebody has decided to commit mass murder then I want to see police dressed in military gear carrying real assault weapons arrive in an armored vehicle kick down doors and take the mofo out. I don't believe that LEO's should be handicapped in that regards, you have a tough job to do and I believe that you should have all the tools available to help you do that job.


I don't want to handicap anyone either. This is more out of frustration than anything. I just believe we are heading to hell in a hand basket and the idea of seeing our Government get stronger while they make us weaker is repugnant.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

In what states are AR-15's banned?


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Urinal Cake said:


> In what states are AR-15's banned?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States

Few states have them banned outright, a few have a ban on new ones but old ones are grandfathered in, few localities have bans.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Ok this is BS:
New Jersey[edit]
See also: Gun laws in New Jersey
In May 1990, New Jersey became the second state in the U.S. to pass an assault weapons ban, after California. At the time, it was the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation.[33] AR-15 platform, semi-automatic rifles are illegal in New Jersey, and owning and publicly carrying other guns require separate licensing processes.[34]

Although it is commonly referred to as an assault weapons ban, New Jersey's law actually uses the term "assault firearm" to define banned and regulated guns. Some New Jersey gun advocates have called its laws "draconian." Attorney Evan Nappen, author of several books on New Jersey gun laws, says the term is "misapplied and carries with it a pejorative meaning."[34]

There is a Mag restriction of 15 rds, your stock must be fixed/pinned not adjustable and you need a muzzle arrestor* not simply a flash hider. Other than that there in no "BAN"

*a muzzle arrestor prevent "Rise" when shooting


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

the great and powerful govt is gonna wake the sleeping giant.
When will all gun owners unite?
How could any one smart enough not to look down the barrel of their own gun vote for Hillary?
Honestly. And I don't believe polls and BS like that. I hope that on election day, a landslide of pissed off gun owners floods the booths.
I don't wanna see anything else go down, but I predict a long hot summer.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

I think one of the reasons why SCOTUS refused to hear the case was the overall implications to the state bans and that the case didn't involve the states .... the IL Rifle Assoc and NRA pushed a small city ban up thru the lower courts - when one of the states get directly involved it'll get heard ....


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> gottcha
> 
> I agree these laws are stupid and do absolutely no good in preventing gun violence nor do they keep criminals from obtaining said weapons. I don't like the lower courts ruling and I don't like the fact that the supreme court denied hearing the case but ultimately I believe its the fault of the citizens of these states for continuing to elect the politicians that make these laws to begin with.


Remember that thought in November. Start at the TOP and go down - (R) all the way.
If The Hildabeast is allowed to put justices on the Supreme Court, what is happening in California, Connecticut, and elsewhere regarding complete AR 15 bans will become nation wide. And perhaps all gun rights go up in smoke.
REMEMBER - your God given, 2nd Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms in the Heller case won by just one vote. Scalia, who is now dead, made that happen. ONE VOTE.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Deebo said:


> the great and powerful govt is gonna wake the sleeping giant.
> When will all gun owners unite?
> How could any one smart enough not to look down the barrel of their own gun vote for Hillary?
> Honestly. And I don't believe polls and BS like that. I hope that on election day, a landslide of pissed off gun owners floods the booths.
> I don't wanna see anything else go down, but I predict a long hot summer.


There are those hunters and sport shooters who don't care about an assault weapon ban, because after all, it doesn't hurt THEM. These folks are known as Fudds. As in Elmer Fudd.
So, their daddy always voted Democrat, the bosses down at the union hall tell them to vote Democrat, they are going to vote for Hillary. Because Hillary isn't going to touch THEIR guns. They are fools. Hillary wants all guns to be outlawed. She has said so.

I am a one issue voter. My right to keep and bear arms.
I don't get concerned with abortion or homosexuality - God will be their judge. Welfare? It will never change. Illegal aliens? There will never be mass roundups and deportations.
Politicians not strictly adhering to the Constitution? That has been going on for 200 years now. The ONLY way to keep those pols in line is the Supreme Court. A Clinton supreme court is just unimaginable.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

I believe CT banned the AR and nobody turned them in. 

I find it interesting they want to ban AR rifles. Cause I've been buying AR pistols. I guess the 5-9 inch shorter barrel it OK.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Chipper said:


> I believe CT banned the AR and nobody turned them in.
> 
> I find it interesting they want to ban AR rifles. Cause I've been buying AR pistols. I guess the 5-9 inch shorter barrel it OK.


Nope, the AR pistol is on the list.


----------



## M118LR (Sep 19, 2015)

Unfortunately, during the Presidential Election, the opinions of the General Public are of no consequence rpd. The Original Elitists designed it that way on purpose. As it stands in America today, the last Presidential Candidate to win the popular vote and not get elected was a Democrat. (GW stole one) In order to ever have a Republican President again, you will need someone that can unite a majority of the Independents plus the entire Republican base. There are just that many Democrats (Legally or not) within America today.

The rural folks that live in states like CA, IL, NY, can understand how the Big Cities dictate State policies.I don't believe you have the proper grasp on the Fudd situation. It's not like the Fudd's ain't concerned about (a semi-auto rifle) an assault rifle ban, it's just that there ain't enough Fudd's crammed into a small enough area to out-weigh the crushing political (monetary) power of the Millions of Urbaner's packed into the inner cities. Just take a look at North Florida for example, (As Republican as the day is long) all the legislation is based upon what happens in Miami-Dade County.(even the housing codes) If it hadn't been for Bush-Rubio folks wouldn't call it Flori-gun. The over population of a Major City within a State tips the entire state blue. Self reliance is not the mantra of the Millions of Urban Dwellers. 
Okay, rant over.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I would say it's coming. While any firearm I ever had is on the bottom of Lake Erie after the boating accident, anyone wanting to keep an ar 15 or such will probably need a weapons cache or risk confiscation.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

This will empower states that have barely beat it back. CA state senators already proposed it today thanks to the supremes.


----------



## oldgrouch (Jul 11, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> I would say it's coming. While any firearm I ever had is on the bottom of Lake Erie after the boating accident, anyone wanting to keep an ar 15 or such will probably need a weapons cache or risk confiscation.


I sold mine out of my truck bed in the parking lot at the last gun show in East Tennessee.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Urinal Cake said:


> Ok this is BS:
> New Jersey[edit]
> See also: Gun laws in New Jersey
> In May 1990, New Jersey became the second state in the U.S. to pass an assault weapons ban, after California. At the time, it was the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation.[33] AR-15 platform, semi-automatic rifles are illegal in New Jersey, and owning and publicly carrying other guns require separate licensing processes.[34]
> ...


just one of the reasons why Crispy Cream should never see DC in any capacity .....


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

oldgrouch said:


> I sold mine out of my truck bed in the parking lot at the last gun show in East Tennessee.


Yes sir, all we'll need then is to see the bill of sale. Oh you don't have it ? Ok then, we'll just get a warrant and search through everything you own.......I hope we don't find anything illegal.

And based off your bad attitude we are going to hold you until we finish the investigation in our federal facility, kiss your wife and kids goodbye.

Oh and we put a freeze on all your bank accounts and credit cards.

Welcome to the new America sir.........


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

These bans are the pacifist liberal way. They aren't going to send good men out to collect guns. They are going to stop the sale of new and transfer of existing guns. The really ugly part comes when you die. Do your kids snag your secret stash or will the gestapo get their first?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Operator6 said:


> Yes sir, all we'll need then is to see the bill of sale. Oh you don't have it ? .......


Op 6 has an excellent point.

Due to the recent tragedies, I have sold all of my guns legally according to current laws in my state. I have signed Bill of Sales to back up each transaction referencing serial numbers.

Guns are icky...


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Slippy said:


> Op 6 has an excellent point.
> 
> Due to the recent tragedies, I have sold all of my guns legally according to current laws in my state. I have signed Bill of Sales to back up each transaction referencing serial numbers.
> 
> Guns are icky...


If a guy thinks he's going to buy a gun off me so there will not be a record of it is sadly mistaken. If I get a knock knock you can believe I've got my feces together.

You know what I keep in my vehicle ? Copy of registration,proof of insurance,copy of my drivers license and a copy of my last two traffic tickets with proof of payment attached.

On the backside I photocopied my hand that is displaying my middle finger. Good day officer.......


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Urinal Cake said:


> Ok this is BS:
> New Jersey[edit]
> See also: Gun laws in New Jersey
> In May 1990, New Jersey became the second state in the U.S. to pass an assault weapons ban, after California. At the time, it was the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation.[33] AR-15 platform, semi-automatic rifles are illegal in New Jersey, and owning and publicly carrying other guns require separate licensing processes.[34]
> ...


I have a good friend who lives in Jersey, her solution to their draconian is setting up her family with M1's... those .308 battle rifles are not "assault weapons" but they are damned fine firearms.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I can't agree with any change to the 2nd amendment to include anything about having equal firepower to that of civilian and military enforcement. That just leads to the Great Britain model of having unarmed officers.
Trust me, politicians see LEO as expendable, and wouldn't think twice about stripping them of arms if it meant the citizenry had to comply as well.
No, I have a right to defend myself and the constitution stands to protect that right.
We should not accept compromise.
Court rulings and laws CANNOT override a good man's rights.
When we fall for the glitter and spectacle, and assume they can do so, is when we GIVE UP our rights.
They cannot be taken, only given away.

There will come a time when words are no longer enough to defend our rights.
We should scream ourselves hoarse while we can toward that goal, but eventually our raspy whispers will fall silent on the ears of presumed authority.
When that times comes, who will speak for you?
As for me, my new voice will come from the barrel of a gun. It will be loud, and they will have no choice but to listen.

When confiscation begins... When they've willfully ignored our pleas for peace, and are pressing hard against good and peaceful people...
When that happens, the good and peaceful will become a force for unrelenting violence against their oppressors. History hath shewn, you can only push a good man so far.
The labor pains of a new generation will not be light, and will not be soon forgotten.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Illini Warrior said:


> just one of the reasons why Crispy Cream should never see DC in any capacity .....


I normally agree with you Ilini, but he will be the AG and he will be very good at chewing the grizzle of the corrupt House and Senate... THAT was his Forte.
He put 137 in jail in NJ, as US Attorney general.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Maybe, perhaps, Trump will be elected, and he will nominate about 3 justices who are "radical" Constitution lovers. One can hope.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

I think that if you feel the need to hide firearms, then it is the time to use them. While I believe that I do not think that it will come to that. Facts say that firearm ownership is up quite a bit and will continue to only go up, young folks are gravitating to this freedom and more, including gays are supporting in greater number. I will also add that a majority of gun owners in NY, CT and Canada for that matter have ignored the govt threats to register, turn-in and otherwise comply with little to no consequences. No way the govt attempts a mass confiscation as it would incite violence without a doubt. I agree with MisterMills that a Trump presidency would be a great cure that would secure the 2nd for years.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> I think that if you feel the need to hide firearms, then it is the time to use them. While I believe that I do not think that it will come to that. Facts say that firearm ownership is up quite a bit and will continue to only go up, young folks are gravitating to this freedom and more, including gays are supporting in greater number. I will also add that a majority of gun owners in NY, CT and Canada for that matter have ignored the govt threats to register, turn-in and otherwise comply with little to no consequences. No way the govt attempts a mass confiscation as it would incite violence without a doubt. I agree with MisterMills that a Trump presidency would be a great cure that would secure the 2nd for years.


Life SOCTUS? Nope!!!! They can be impeached. Violating their oath is treason. About 5 should be done now.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Mad Trapper said:


> Life SOCTUS? Nope!!!! They can be impeached. Violating their oath is treason. About 5 should be done now.


I do not disagree, but do not see anyone in govt being held accountable unless Trump is elected or the nation experiences a SHTF situation.


----------



## Burn The Obedient (Jun 22, 2016)

Hey all, new here. Just want to chime in on this.

One of the big things to remember is your local law enforcement. The Sheriff in your county is the only, and highest ranking, elected law enforcement agent in the country. What I did, and what we should all be doing, is making sure you have a Sheriff in office that will refuse to assist the .gov in any enforcement of gun ban/confiscation. They have more authority than City, State, and Federal police. There are numerous Sheriffs in the country that have already stated their loyalty to the People and the Constitution.


----------

