Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:26 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 877
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogger23m View Post
Not true. Various semi auto rifles are used by many military forces around the world. Practically every country issues a semi auto only DMR/precision rifle. One example is the M110. Some countries even issue or used to issue semi auto rifles as standard issue for riflemen. The British did this up until the 90s with the L1A1.

Fairly irrelevant to the point though; military weapons are protected under the 2nd. But worth pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdsmith505 View Post
Thanks. It's important to note, though, that various AW bans focus on defensive rifles, and not sniper rifles and the like. The sentiment about military use of semi-auto is directed in-kind to the types of rifles consistent with the scope of the proposed bans and what may constitute an "assault weapon" at this time.

The antis haven't latched onto long-distance rifles as much, yet.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-12-2019, 4:10 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case is now on the Supreme Court's website:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....lic/19a11.html

The cert petition is due on September 23, 2019.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:26 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 230
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Glad it made it! I hope they get someone who can argue better than what happened at the Appeals. That oral was a trainwreck.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-13-2019, 2:41 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The case is to overturn the MA AW law entirely, not just the "series" prohibition, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-13-2019, 2:50 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Glad it made it! I hope they get someone who can argue better than what happened at the Appeals. That oral was a trainwreck.
Last thing we need is an incompetent lawyer in front of SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-13-2019, 3:04 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 230
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
The case is to overturn the MA AW law entirely, not just the "series" prohibition, correct?
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-13-2019, 4:40 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 620
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
It sounds exactly like the recent Rupp case in California. The judge found that the AR-15 was "Like" the M16, and the select fire difference was basically irrelevant. Since the Ar-15 was like the M16 it could be banned, per the judges logic.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-25-2019, 2:47 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Supreme Court case page

Cert petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...r%20I%20br.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-25-2019, 2:57 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I like counsel for the petitioners address . . . 1 Constitution Wharf.

At this point, I'll take about anything as a favorable sign.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-25-2019, 3:47 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Having someone that really knows the subject matter is important, but we all know the judges decision that "AR-15=M-16" would have happened regardless of how well or poorly the orals went.

The conservatives on SCOTUS know the difference, so this really isn't an issue in my mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.