Guns: how much longer will it take ....

sceletera wrote:

This rifle would not have been banned under most assault weapons laws since it didn't meet the legal definition under the law. If you want to make a case that it would be Constitutional to ban it, go ahead. That is the only LEGAL case you are making.

I suspect that he is making a different legal case whether you like it or not.

The judgment made by the General Assembly of Maryland in
enacting the FSA is precisely the type of judgment that
legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a
court. That is, “it is the legislature’s job, not ours, to
weigh conflicting evidence and make policy judgments.” See
Woollard, 712 F.3d at 881 (quoting Kachalsky v. Cty. of
Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 99 (2d Cir. 2012)). And, “we must
‘accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments of
[the legislature].’” See Satellite Broad. & Commc’ns Ass’n v.
FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 356 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Turner Broad.
Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994) (“Turner I”)). Our
obligation is simply “to assure that, in formulating its
judgments, [the legislature] has drawn reasonable inferences
based on substantial evidence.” See Turner I, 512 U.S. at 666;
accord Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 195 (1997)
(“Turner II”)

You can keep repeating that all you want.

I will rely on the full text of the Constitution and the courts that are tasked with interpreting it and whether laws as written are constitutional.

The simple fact is that the 1994 assault weapons ban was never ruled unconstitutional.

oralloy wrote:

You've openly stated that these court rulings are not being offered as backing for your arguments.

Where an when did I do that?

Note: oralloy will be unable to provide any evidence of me making such a claim.

He has simply come up with what he thinks is a clever way to ignore court rulings that show his opinion to be wrong under the law.

oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:

This appears to be a variant of an AR-15. As such it can be banned without violating the US Constitution.

That is incorrect. The lack of any good reason to ban it makes such a ban unconstitutional.

Your statement is nonsense.

This is from the 4th circuit ruling.

What you suspect and what the actual legal argument is are two completely different things.

It is Constitutional to ban assault weapons.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that.

If someone wants to argue a gun is essentially the same as what has been described by law as an assault weapon then they are making an argument that such a weapon could also be banned.

They are not making a legal argument that assault weapons can't be banned since that legal question has been answered.

You may think that but the courts say otherwise.

I'll be away all day tomorrow doing something interesting. Barring my being crushed under a collapsing bridge or similar misfortune, I'll be back on-line sometime on Sunday.

Unfortunately for you, we aren't playing Trivial Pursuit here. Your idle trivia is kind of pointless in the context of the discussion.

To summarize, we hold as follows:

(1) The core prohibitions by New York and Connecticut of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

"the argument is not that I am right because the courts agree with me."
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-79#post-6608860

The court rulings show no such thing. They are not even being offered in the context of the discussion here.

That is incorrect. It is a standard rule that laws are only allowed to restrict a Constitutional right if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

sceletera wrote:

It is Constitutional to ban assault weapons.

That is incorrect. The lack of any good reason for such a ban makes it unconstitutional.

We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements.

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment,

We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

Your "facts" are not facts at all.

They are nothing but your uniformed opinion.

I will rely on court rulings for reaching my conclusions since it is the courts that decide Constitutionality.

Court rulings are hardly idle trivia.

Your insistence that court rulings that state a ban on assault weapons is constitutional is trivia shows your lack of understanding of how the law and the Constitution actually work.

From the Second Appeals court.

Perhaps you should use the entire sentence which gives the phrase a much different meaning.

I did not say that the court rulings don't support my arguments. I said my argument is not a logical fallacy because I am not simply claiming I am right because the courts have the same opinion I do.

You seem to be in denial of reality as well as facts.

And where pray tell did you get this standard rule? Please provide a source. Otherwise you are simply resorting to an ipse dixit.

The courts have consistently disagreed with you.

Their arguments are not only persuasive

but also carry the rule of law.

The interesting thing is that when you read the cases you will find that the courts did apply intermediate scrutiny which is what you are claiming they need to do. Not only that but the courts quote Justice Scalia in the reasoning of why they make the decision that assault weapons are not protected by the second amendment.

Numerous celebrities and public figures have voiced their support for the march, with Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, Miley Cyrus and Demi Lovato signed on to attend, according to organizers. Oprah Winfrey, Dwyane Wade, Gabrielle Union, Steven Spielberg and George and Amal Clooney have also made sizable cash donations to fund the marches in addition to the millions of dollars raised from the general public.

In Washington and in cities around the world, students will hit the streets on March 24 and demand legislative action to curb gun violence.