The AR-15 follies: Here we go again!

It has for ten years after Heller as states year by year pas UBC and regulate firearms.

 

Yeah, it's pretty basic, that one. When you possess that which kills, you also possess a host of duties and responsibilities.

 

Well some of those regulations can be justified as serving a compelling government interest. As such they should get along with Heller just fine.

But for those regulations that cannot be so justified, I think it is high time the Supreme Court started enforcing Heller and striking them down.

 

none of them have been challenged in court

 

That has been proven to be used by anti-gun politicians to keep law abiding people from being able to afford a self defense firearm.

 

However the government has no such right.

 

Absolutely, rights are inherent, responsibility is a duty outside of a right.

 

I do not have such a duty because it doesn't exist, if I wish to intervene I may have immunity should someone get injured or killed, but I am not required to intervene.

 

Your being trolled.

 

ha ha, Of course some have....this is just one of others the court isn’t even recognizing...the courts are refusing to even consider challenges to legal gun laws. Dream on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html

 

right. none of them have been challenged in court. Not hearing a case is not "ruling" on a case. Do you not get tired of being wrong?

 

When a court refuses to hear a case, it’s a decision. It sends it to the lower court. Any dufus knows that courts do this for two reasons. First they find nothing in the challenge worth ruling on and wouldn't change anything if they did hear it. Secondly, as long as the court keeps the same law, precedent is established.

it’s no different then the courts including the Supreme Court refusing to here Trump’s election challenges.....no worth while evidence. Not even enough to hear the case. Same with gun laws....even a dim wit knows the courts need enough evidence ahead of time to even proceed with a hearing.

One type of challenge alone, the court has refused to hear it 3 times. So really, it’s been going on with regularity and the SC still supports NEARLY ALL new firearm regs in the last ten years,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...sses-three-second-amendment-cases/7283819002/

I expect a response with no evidence but just a lot of whining declaring how right gunners are.....a Trumpian whine.

 

Wrong on both counts. Courts avoid taking cases for a number of reasons, and some are unrelated to the merits of the claims being made. And a refusal to take a case does not set any precedent.

 

No it isn’t

 

When the court makes a decision, you say it’s not a decision. You’re amazing. It’s Trumpism at it’s not so finest.

 

The SC doesn’t take decisions for two reasons

1. Agreement with the lower court decision

1. 2. Issue not significant enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention.
2. 
   But you can keep,making up sht...
3. 
   
4. Like a decision is not a decision. That’s hilarious. I suppose a dog is not a dog either.

 

Not hearing a case is not "ruling" on a case. Do you not get tired of being wrong?

 

Of course, you can’t list any of them.....just babble at this point.

 

Agreeing with the lower court, is a decision. The court submits a brief that explains their reasons for not taking a case. These are official decisions of the court. They are RULINGS.

Agreeing with a lower court is a ruling. You act like the only time they make a.decision is when you agree with it. Seldom have we seen so much made up sht. As yet, you have done no research, no evidence just crappola.

 

Not hearing a case is not agreeing with a lower court. It’s not a ruling in any way shape or form. Do you never tire of being wrong?

 

One reason that the courts might refuse to hear a case that is otherwise sound on its merits is lack of standing by the person bringing the case.

Another reason is lack of ripeness.

Another reason is because the case has become moot.

At any rate, it has only been a few months since Justice Barrett was appointed. You are really jumping the gun here with your presumption that the Supreme Court will continue to refuse to hear cases.

 

Of course, you have evidence. Nope. The SC votes two days out of week to decide which cases to take. They make a authoritative decision. They rule on whether to take the case and why. .Gee, another reference.....and you ? Just BS.
https://www.livingfacts.org/en/articles/2020/how-the-supreme-court-decides-which-cases-to-hear

 

Gee, they have for ten years.....and counting. Are gunners waiting for the court to rule we can’t regulate firearms ? Exactly what ruling are they expecting ?
Of course, I don’t expect an answer. Gunners never give answers, just platitudes.

 

Justice Barrett has not been on the Supreme Court for ten years. More like half of one year.

 

I think I've listed several times now the laws that I expect to be struck down once the Supreme Court begins enforcing Heller.