Posted on 11/05/2023 4:34:10 AM PST by MtnClimber
The “logic” behind the opinion is so asinine and juvenile that it could only come from judges.
Illinois desperately wants to ensure that, within the state’s borders, only criminals have guns. When it comes to law-abiding citizens, the state will do anything to disarm them. That includes passing a law that pretty much bans “assault weapons” (a non-existent category that really covers AR-15s, America’s most popular gun) and large-capacity magazines (which really do exist). A federal district court issued an injunction against that part of the law, but a three-judge panel reversed the injunction on grounds that are so asinine and juvenile that they could come only from judges.
The three-judge panel in Barnett v. Raoul (Case No. 23-13530 consisted of a Reagan appointee, a Clinton appointee, and a Trump appointee. Only the latter supported the trial court. The other two judges came up with some astounding logic. I’ve summarized the judges’ logic, along with my commentary (in bolded text).
1. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms irrespective of active involvement in a formal militia, said that the Second Amendment is not a completely unlimited right. This is true. Heller said that.
2. The Heller decision said that the arms meant to be protected under the Second Amendment were those that were not dedicated solely to military use but were of the type that ordinary citizens would ordinarily have. To that end, the court held that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes….” America’s law-abiding citizens own around 20 million AR-15s, which they use for law-abiding purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The military are using drones now, so by liberal logic, civilians aren’t allowed to have them because they are “weapons of war” (and civilian drones are shaped “just like military weapons of war drones, therefore civlian drones must be weap9ns of war” (even thouhg they aren’t equipped with the capabilities and munitions to take out people like military drones are.)
Liberals can twist logic so severely that folks are left scratching their heads wondering what in the heck they are talking about.
Civilian ar-15’s are not capable of full automatic. An “assault weapon” used by military are capable of dual or triple fire modes, one being full automatic. That is the definiti9n of assault rifle.
as·sault ri·fle
noun
1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
And color. Paint one yellow and call it a personal protection device.
Pulled that decision right out of their collective asses, eh?
Diane Wood is a Rapin Bill Clinton stooge.
Michael Brennan was the only one who stood up for the Rule of Law, instead of the Rule of DNC Stooge. He is, of course, a Trump judge. The confirmation vote for Brennan in the US Senate was 49 to 46.
Great idea. Some other designations:
CF-15 (Colt Firearms)
WW-15 (Windham Weaponry)
GG-15 (’Ghost’ guns) ;)
They can’t ban them all!
With judges this capable of this sort of twisted thinking there can be no law , period. There is no Reason in this decision. It flys in the face of of the very letter of the law.
Semi-auto rifles have been around since 1903. That is 120 years. Winchester 1903 and Remington model 8.
If the AR-15 is good enough for Miss America 1962 to shoot it is good enough for us today.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/06/07/blast-from-the-past-miss-america-shooting-a-cutting-edge-rifle/
Sturm
(lit, fig) storm
in Sturm und Regen in wind and rain
das Barometer steht auf Sturm (lit) the barometer is indicating stormy weather; (fig) there’s a storm brewing
sturm collinsdictionary.com
gewehr
(= Flinte) rifle; (= Schrotbüchse) shotgun
Gewehr ab! (Mil) order arms!
das Gewehr über! (Mil) shoulder arms!
gewehr collinsdictionary.com
StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44)
Hiram maxim and John Browning turned lever action rifles into full and semi automatics.
They changed the name of many semi-auto rifles banned by name during Bill clinton’s joke of a ban. Most suddenly became “TARGET rifles”.
That is why such modified rifles were still for sale all through the “ban”.
You're welcome. ;O)
When the framers wrote the 1A, they spoke of the “press” and of “speech.” Being learned men, they clearly meant to limit those freedoms to specifically newspaper and leaflets, and speech would have been only those things said within earshot. All other developments regarding the 1A were clearly not to be included, utilizing current 2A activist jurist interpretation.
“The three-judge panel in Barnett v. Raoul (Case No. 23-13530 consisted of a Reagan appointee, a Clinton appointee, and a Trump appointee. Only the latter supported the trial court.”
Who is the moron that was Reagan’s F’up? Nice system where two idiots can make such drastic decisions.
Thanks for finding g that, and yes, “assault rifle” is select fire w/ full auto as one of the selections. The Supreme Court should step in and declare rifles like the ar-15 (and ALL semi-automatic rifles” do not qualify as an “assault weapon” because they don’t fit with the definition and is incapable of full auto.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Witches are made of wood, Wood floats, so does a duck, so if whe weighs the same as a duck, she’s a witch!
What is the rate of fire of a bump-stock? different reports, maybe around 300 rpm
How fast can a person pull an AR-15 trigger; what is max rate of fire? about 30 in 6 seconds = 300 rpm
What is M-16 fully auto rate of fire? 800 rpm
And the bump stock is very inaccurate, and max trigger pulling is somewhat inaccurate.
If any of these ‘lawmakers’ will look at facts.
I certainly hope not.
The Second Amendment was not adopted to limit the arms of the people. It was intended as a restraint on our government.
The Second Amendment could have said, “the right of the people to keep and bear defensive arms shall not be infringed.”. But that is not what our Founders wrote. Our Founders had just overthrown a tyrannical monarch. They intended that the military must remain subordinate to civilian control.
Consider the following quote from Tench Coxe. “ Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Unlimited power, not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but in the hands of the people. That is why the Second Amendement says “arms” and not “muskets”.
This should not take long for the Supreme Court overturn, but too bad they can’t also dismiss the justices
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.