I get about a 3 inch group at 500M with my AR
Does that make me a controller? LOL
Does that make me a controller? LOL
If it's a stock AR it means you like fish stories, are incredibly good with your rifle or incredibly lucky.
I'd give a shiny quarter to see that AR do sub moa out at 500m.
I'd give your quarter too, to see him hit a normal size target at 500 meters. It would be worth it to spend MD's quarter.
While you are technically right, there is something called "case law" Basically this is what we are seeing. Since this is the highest court in the land, and the case dealt directly with a challenge of a law based on constitutionality, it becomes a ruling that other cases nation-wide will be compared to. Kind of a "litmus-test" We will see a bunch of new cases filed in the near future in states and cities that have prohibiting gun laws. This decision does not automatically mean that everyone in the land who legally can own a firearm now gets to. It will be a while before we see laws across the nation change to meet this new ruling. A Judge would be commiting career suicide to openly rule against the precidence set by today's decision. that being said, it will still probably happen somewhere.
Case law is still not law. Case law is just a set of legal precedents, right or wrong, that can be affirmed or negated at any time.
McDonald v. Chicago was not well decided. Only Justice Clarence Thomas chose the right path for incorporation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
By the plurality using the Due Process Clause, the Second Amendment is now subject to interpretation based solely on the political views of the sitting Justices at the time that a case is heard. Substantive due process requires that the Justices determine whether or not the right in question is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.
Overall, McDonald v. Chicago is actually a loss for Second Amendment rights in that the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is not written in stone. It doesn't take much effort to find that there is no consensus on precedents in Due Process rulings from the Supreme Court.
What this basically amounted to is an invitation to start advertising job openings at law firms specifically for Second Amendment litigation.
By the way, a judge would not be committing career suicide to rule against any precedent set by McDonald v. Chicago. It's a common theme throughout Due Process cases.
It's too bad that no one had the balls to challenge Slaughter-House, even after saying previously that Slaughter-House is very flawed.
Based on the decision as written it's not outside the realm of possibility that within the next 10 years or so the courts will rule that we all have the right to own as many firearms as we want. We just won't be able to take them out of our house.
And that's one reason that I think people need to take a step back a breathe for a minute.
Most people don't realize the limited scope of this decision and how it has opened up the Second Amendment to even more litigation.
Similar threads
