Nashville Shooter Is A 28 Year Old Woman.

[icanhelp1]

The SCOTUS has ruled in Heller and in NYSRPA v. Bruen that governments cannot ban firearms in common use and that those 2A rights were incorporated into the states by the 14th Amendment. In fact, those two decisions will be the demise of much of the existing state gun controls. A federal court has the case filed by gun owners against the Illinois assault weapon ban. The CA assault weapon ban is about to be ruled on in CA by the same federal court that ruled it unconstitutional before Bruen. The CA magazine ban will share the same fate by the same federal judge, as will the Ammunition background check imposed by CA on its citizens. Those decisions, now predicated on the "text as informed by history standard" imposed by the SCOTUS in Bruen will no doubt go against the California bans. There's a similar case in New Jersey that is about to be ruled against by a federal judge there.

PROHIBITED UNDER MA LAW:
:
✘ Massachusetts-defined “Assault Weapons”
✘ Any semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
● Folding or telescoping stock
● Pistol grip that protrudes
conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon ●

A bayonet mount

● Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
● Grenade launcher

✘ Named “Assault Rifles”:
● Automat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models and/or copies)
● Action Arms Israeli Industries (IMI) UZI, Galil, and copies
● Beretta AR70 (SC-70) and copies
● Colt AR-15 and copies
● FN FAL, FN LAR, FNC, and copies
● Steyr AUG and copies

MA has tough gun laws.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The SCOTUS has ruled in Heller and in NYSRPA v. Bruen that governments cannot ban firearms in common use and that those 2A rights were incorporated into the states by the 14th Amendment. In fact, those two decisions will be the demise of much of the existing state gun controls. A federal court has the case filed by gun owners against the Illinois assault weapon ban. The CA assault weapon ban is about to be ruled on in CA by the same federal court that ruled it unconstitutional before Bruen. The CA magazine ban will share the same fate by the same federal judge, as will the Ammunition background check imposed by CA on its citizens. Those decisions, now predicated on the "text as informed by history standard" imposed by the SCOTUS in Bruen will no doubt go against the California bans. There's a similar case in New Jersey that is about to be ruled against by a federal judge there.

I had the same reaction to icanhelp’s comment as you did. I thought surely he’s mistaken because of SCOTUS decisions upholding the right to possess firearms in common use. I looked up the MA law and it looks like they do have a law that pretty much excludes any AR type gun from legal possession. As a former resident of CA, I am very familiar with that state’s unsuccessful efforts to use every trick in the book to ban ARs. All the points and examples you cite are spot on. I can only assume that the MA law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

 

[Rightguide]

PROHIBITED UNDER MA LAW:
:
✘ Massachusetts-defined “Assault Weapons”
✘ Any semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
● Folding or telescoping stock
● Pistol grip that protrudes
conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon ●

A bayonet mount

● Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
● Grenade launcher

✘ Named “Assault Rifles”:
● Automat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models and/or copies)
● Action Arms Israeli Industries (IMI) UZI, Galil, and copies
● Beretta AR70 (SC-70) and copies
● Colt AR-15 and copies
● FN FAL, FN LAR, FNC, and copies
● Steyr AUG and copies

MA has tough gun laws.

Yep, almost the same as CA but nonetheless they are unconstitutional under Bruen and will not survive in the SCOTUS post Bruen

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

PROHIBITED UNDER MA LAW:
:
✘ Massachusetts-defined “Assault Weapons”
✘ Any semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
● Folding or telescoping stock
● Pistol grip that protrudes
conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon ●

A bayonet mount

● Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
● Grenade launcher

✘ Named “Assault Rifles”:
● Automat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models and/or copies)
● Action Arms Israeli Industries (IMI) UZI, Galil, and copies
● Beretta AR70 (SC-70) and copies
● Colt AR-15 and copies
● FN FAL, FN LAR, FNC, and copies
● Steyr AUG and copies

Ok. Now I see what MA did. Very similar to CA approach. It’s the detachable magazine *and* …language. I learned to live without a grenade launcher, bayonet mount, and flash suppressor. When I first bought the gun, what California AR owners refer to as a bullet button. These were a work around to a CA law that required use of a tool to release the mag. Manufacturers devised a release that required a blunt pointed tool. .223 and 556 bullets proved to be ideal tools. From the “you can’t make this shit up department”, CA added bullet buttons into its definition of assault weapons so we all removed them and replaced with standard mag release buttons.

 

[schism666]

She was being treated for a mental problem. Who knows what can happen when you start replacing your God-given estrogen with testosterone? So far it doesn't look good.

what's the reason behind all of the straight white men murdering children, doc vette?

 

[schism666]

And we’re off…

vette has been off for years.

 

[Rightguide]

I had the same reaction to icanhelp’s comment as you did. I thought surely he’s mistaken because of SCOTUS decisions upholding the right to possess firearms in common use. I looked up the MA law and it looks like they do have a law that pretty much excludes any AR type gun from legal possession. As a former resident of CA, I am very familiar with that state’s unsuccessful efforts to use every trick in the book to ban ARs. All the points and examples you cite are spot on. I can only assume that the MA law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

I think you can count on it. There are lawsuits being filed all over the country right now that are going to take down much of the gun controls we've been forced to live with for so many years. States like CA are already dropping the "good reason" requirement for granting CCWs in the state ans in other states kike New York and New Jersey the issues there are being litigated in federal district courts as we speak. In Texas, even the ATF's regulatory power is being diminished in cases being brought under Bruen. This will take some time to go through the courts but the end is in view. Parts of the 1934 NFA will be going by the wayside as well.

 

[icanhelp1]

I had the same reaction to icanhelp’s comment as you did. I thought surely he’s mistaken because of SCOTUS decisions upholding the right to possess firearms in common use. I looked up the MA law and it looks like they do have a law that pretty much excludes any AR type gun from legal possession. As a former resident of CA, I am very familiar with that state’s unsuccessful efforts to use every trick in the book to ban ARs. All the points and examples you cite are spot on. I can only assume that the MA law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

I totally agree, I find the laws unconstitutional but the court rulings do give states ambiguous latitude to determine what is acceptable under state legislation.

 

[Rightguide]

I totally agree, I find the laws unconstitutional but the court rulings do give states ambiguous latitude to determine what is acceptable under state legislation.

All that is needed is to have a lawsuit by the GOA or the NRA filed in Maryland that will reach the federal appellate level.

 

[icanhelp1]

I think you can count on it. There are lawsuits being filed all over the country right now that are going to take down much of the gun controls we've been forced to live with for so many years. States like CA are already dropping the "good reason" requirement for granting CCWs in the state ans in other states kike New York and New Jersey the issues there are being litigated in federal district courts as we speak. In Texas, even the ATF's regulatory power is being diminished in cases being brought under Bruen. This will take some time to go through the courts but the end is in view. Parts of the 1934 NFA will be going by the wayside as well.

Trust me when I say the laws have been challenged every which way. I'd own an AR-15 if I could but ya can't buy one anywhere. If you get caught with an out of state purchase, could end up in one of those DC GULAGS

Can't even have a military style M-16 magazine, any over 10 rounds could land you in jail. Had to get rid of all my 20 and 30 round magazines I accumulated over my years in the military. You can't have amo in your possession unless licensed with FID, CLASS-B or CLASS-A LTC

 

[Mature4P]

While you Americans defend peoples rights to bear arms this will only get worse and more innocent people will lose their lives.
Once upon a time it would have been a rifle only capable of one shot...... now it would appear people think it's just fine and dandy to be tooled up like Rambo.

It's a strange but very sad situation for an onlooker from the UK.

 

[Rightguide]

Trust me when I say the laws have been challenged every which way. I'd own an AR-15 if I could but ya can't buy one anywhere. If you get caught with an out of state purchase, could end up in one of those DC GULAGS

keep an eye on the New Jersey case no before the federal court there. That judge is already pissed at the state for stonewalling the process and has given them specific instructions to follow in their process. It looks like that case will have a major impact on the eastern states. We'll see in the coming month or so.

 

[YDB95]

It's a strange but very sad situation for an onlooker from the UK.

It's strange and sad for plenty of Americans too, even though we understand why it's allowed to go on happening.

 

[icanhelp1]

It's strange and sad for plenty of Americans too, even though we understand why it's allowed to go on happening.

You write stupid shit. I't's never allowed to happen.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Mental illness has always been a negative to 2A rights. That's why the ATF 4473 Form asks about a buyer's mental health or drug addiction.

Is that what "Shall not be infringed" means? If the Founders had meant "No criminals, no mentally ill, no children" they would have said so. If they Founders had meant "No bombs" they would have said so.

You're the one who worships dead people because they are smarter than you not me, I think once you die your opinion is forfeit.

 

[YDB95]

You write stupid shit. I't's never allowed to happen.

Then we all imagined what just happened in Nashville?

 

[schism666]

keep an eye on the New Jersey case no before the federal court there. That judge is already pissed at the state for stonewalling the process and has given them specific instructions to follow in their process. It looks like that case will have a major impact on the eastern states. We'll see in the coming month or so.

you have the most sadly pathetic life.

 

[ll74]

You write stupid shit. I't's never allowed to happen.

A mentally ill person is allowed to purchase a high powered weapon, which greatly increases their impact on society.

Its a fairly easy concept.

Knife -> zero casualties
Gun -> 6 casualties.

 

[icanhelp1]

A mentally ill person is allowed to purchase a high powered weapon, which greatly increases their impact on society.

Its a fairly easy concept.

Knife -> zero casualties
Gun -> 6 casualties.

Purchased legally, the system is broken, being treated medically for mental issues which is hidden to gun merchants, something got to give. These mass shootings are a result of mentally ill individuals shielded by the courts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So you are arguing that Americans are more mentally ill than citizens of other industrialized nations?

 

[ll74]

Purchased legally, the system is broken, being treated medically for mental issues which is hidden to gun merchants, something got to give. These mass shootings are a result of mentally ill individuals shielded by the courts.

Legally.....correct. The shooter should never been able to legally purchase the gun. They aren't shielded by the courts, they are shielded by the law. The scrutiny to buy and AR-15 should be enough to prevent this person from buying a gun, much less two, much less 7.

 

[jomar]

She was being treated for a mental problem. Who knows what can happen when you start replacing your God-given estrogen with testosterone? So far it doesn't look good.

LOL, that’s almost up there with “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

 

[Chobham]

Why is it that when a cop shoots someone the cry is to do something about the cops but when a criminal shoots someone the cry is to do something about the gun?

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Why is it that when a cop shoots someone the cry is to do something about the cops but when a criminal shoots someone the cry is to do something about the gun?

You want to disarm the cops? They are supposed to have the guns.

The fact that you even asked that question and were serious is seriously retarded. lol Trump 2024!

 

[ll74]

Why is it that when a cop shoots someone the cry is to do something about the cops but when a criminal shoots someone the cry is to do something about the gun?

Because cops are held to a higher standard than criminals.
If they aren't, then they aren't cops, they are criminals.