Federal Judge says 2nd Amendment doesn't cover Semi-Auto-Rifles (Page 6): Not without choking.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Huey Driver wrote:

Can you say i***t, judge and California all in one breath?

Not without choking.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Frank T wrote:

The judge is appointed due to her knowledge in law, not weapons.
Her ruling is based upon her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Unless you have a law degree and have passed the bar, your opinion doesn't matter in this case. What does matter is the opinion of the Judge in the next highest court.

Never thought I would agree with him, but he's right. Perhaps the appellate judge will know more about firearms AND the law.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Texcaster wrote:

I qualified on the M14 and M16, big deal, we all did.

As did I, and neither had a "bullet button."

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

Frank T wrote:

The judge is appointed due to her knowledge in law, not weapons.
Her ruling is based upon her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Unless you have a law degree and have passed the bar, your opinion doesn't matter in this case. What does matter is the opinion of the Judge in the next highest court.

The " judge " should do her home work before she runs her "educated" mouth. She is advertising how ignorant she really is.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Frank T wrote:

The judge is appointed due to her knowledge in law, not weapons.
Her ruling is based upon her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Unless you have a law degree and have passed the bar, your opinion doesn't matter in this case. What does matter is the opinion of the Judge in the next highest court.

Fundamentally, a judge is required to understand what they are ruling on. She does not understand the basics of firearms. Nor does she understand the basics of the 2nd amendment.
Frankty, your opinion doesn’t matter. Right?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Frank T wrote:

My, my, my. Now you've got my attention.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/07/ca-judge-rules-semi-auto-rifles-not-protected-under-2nd-amendment/

Explain the exception written into the 2nd amendment addressing that it does not cover a self loading and repeating firearm of any kind?
So what about pistols?
DA revolvers would qualify as well because all you have to do is pull the trigger to fire them until the ammunition runs out like you would on an AR15.

Angmo

Architect1776 wrote:

Explain the exception written into the 2nd amendme... (show quote)

Oh and while we’re talking crime control:

Angmo

Why aren’t i*****l a***ns off the street?

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Frank T wrote:

Unless you have a law degree and have passed the bar, your opinion doesn't matter in this case.

Spoken like a true serf wanting some scraps from the master’s plate.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Texcaster wrote:

The judge is saying that ... even the most anxious DIY home defender is still very well armed with the remaining choice of firearms.

What are those remaining choices?

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

LWW wrote:

Spoken like a true serf wanting some scraps from the master’s plate.

I thought your iq couldn't go lower.
You have proven me wrong.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Frank T wrote:

Her ruling is based upon her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Therein lies the problem.

The scone is as clear as it comes.

The authors of the COTUS made it even clearer in the FEDERALIST PAPERS.

There is no interpretation needed.

Your argument is as ridiculous as getting stopped for going 85 in a 25 and explaining that 85 was your interpretation:

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Frank T wrote:

I thought your iq couldn't go lower.
You have proven me wrong.

Awwww ... did the t***h cut you?

Good.

Maybe you’ll wake up.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

One Rude Dawg wrote:

The " judge " should do her home work before she runs her "educated" mouth. She is advertising how ignorant she really is.

A good majority of Judges rely entirely on the litigant presentations and their law clerks to educate them on matters in a case. Ideally, they are supposed to only rule on the material facts presented in the case, unfortunately, many of them have a built-in bias which pretty much preordains the decision. What is worse though is that some of them have law clerks who hold a bias, and they filter and color much of the pleadings and analysis with their desired spin which the judge ultimately bases his ruling on.

FrumCA

Blurryeyed wrote:

The judge was a she and she obviously knows nothing about guns and has used propaganda from the left to inform her ruling, it won't stand.

I certainly hope not. If it's appealed and that appears likely, the appeal will be heard by the Ninth Circuit which is one of the most liberal courts in the land. If it rules in favor of the judge then the case will be on it's way to the SCOTUS. That's where the judge's ruling will fail. Let's check back on this in 3-4 years!!