The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Saturday, August 19, 2023
Judge Upholds Connecticut Ban on Semi-Automatic Firearms - Ammoland.com
On August 3, 2023, Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on whether the recent Connecticut law banning the possession of common semi-automatic rifles and pistols under the appellation of “assault weapons” and of standard capacity magazines which hold more than ten rounds.
Judge Arterton ruled the law is not prohibited by the Second Amendment. She does not see it as an infringement because, she claims, “assault weapons” and magazines over ten rounds are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. Magazines that hold more than ten rounds are referred to as large capacity magazines or “LCM”s by the court. From NAGR v. Lamont:
For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because they have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claim that the challenged statutes unconstitutionally burden their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs’ proposed ownership of assault weapons and LCMs is not protected by the Second Amendment because they have not demonstrated that the specific assault weapons and LCMs in the Challenged Statutes are commonly sought out, purchased, and used for self-defense. Although this failure alone would have been fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendants have submitted persuasive evidence that assault weapons and LCMs are more often sought out for their militaristic characteristics than for self-defense, that these characteristics make the weapons disproportionately dangerous to the public based on their increased capacity for lethality, and that assault weapons and LCMs are more often used in crimes and mass shootings than in self-defense.
Judge Arterton uses this claim to place the burden of proof on those opposing the firearms ban. Her argument rests on two interpretations of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and the dismissal of Caetano as irrelevant. Heller sets up the standard: Protected arms are those which are in common use for lawful purposes. From Judge Arterton, page 18:
Heller characterized Miller as standing for the proposition that the Second Amendment “extends only to certain types of weapons,” id. at 622-23; weapons “used in defense of person and home” are constitutionally protected, but “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barred shotguns,” are not. Id. at 624-25. The historical tradition of “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” as discussed in 18th and 19th century treatises, Heller held, supported Miller’s restriction on the scope of the Second Amendment, which Heller described as an “important limitation on the right.” Id. at 627.5
Heller did not limit the right to keep and bear arms more than Miller. Instead, Heller showed the arms protected were all arms in common use for lawful purposes, not just those arms which were useful in the military.
Judge Arterton lays out the Connecticut government’s explanation of what “common use for lawful purposes” means. They claim the test was changed by the Bruen decision to mean commonly used and documented as used for self-defense, not for other lawful purposes. They claim the documented uses for self-defense must be more common than criminal uses.
Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Upholds Connecticut Ban
Friday, August 18, 2023
Gab's Response to a Foreign Government's Censorship Demand - From the Inbox
Gab Stands Firm Against Censorship Demand From The New Zealand Government
Dear Gab Community,
We want to keep you informed about an important development involving Gab and its commitment to preserving the principles of free speech and open discourse. Our platform, which is based in the United States, has recently received a censorship demand from a foreign country – New Zealand. We feel it is our responsibility to share this news with you, as transparency is crucial in upholding the values we hold dear. As many of you already know we regularly turn down censorship demands from foreign governments including France, Germany, and the UK among others.
First and foremost it's essential to understand that Gab is situated in the United States, where governmental interference with political speech is categorically prohibited. Our platform benefits from the robust protection of U.S. constitutional law, which empowers us to make decisions about the content we host without external influence. Regardless of how offensive certain content may be, we firmly stand behind the principles of free expression.
Our commitment to these principles means that we do not censor lawful content for any reason, and we do not yield to orders from foreign nations that attempt to curtail this fundamental right. It is worth reiterating that Gab's operations are entirely based in the United States, and we have no presence, verification, establishment, or intention to hire personnel in New Zealand.
Addressing the specific content in question, we wish to clarify a significant point. Contrary to the allegations made in the recent letter, Gab does not actually host the content itself. Instead, we provide a hyperlink that serves as a reference to content hosted elsewhere on the Internet. This hyperlink, by design, could potentially lead to any content, contingent on the decisions made by the webhost on the other end.
It has come to our attention that New Zealand is attempting to achieve a particular outcome through indirect means. It appears that the content they seek to remove is self-hosted by a third party, leading to the attempt to erase any reference to it by demanding the removal of a hyperlink posted by a Gab user. This leads us to believe that the original author is non-responsive to their requests, leading to an attempt to exert control over our platform as an alternative avenue.
We want to assure you that we will not comply with this request to remove the link. We stand firm in our commitment to free speech and will not be coerced into suppressing content or stifling open discussion. Any attempt to pressure Gab, regardless of its source, will be met with the same unwavering stance.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that New Zealand has the right to voice its concerns and make decisions for its citizens. However, we believe that respecting the principles of free speech and the values that underpin open dialogue is of utmost importance. Whether New Zealand chooses to align itself with those who have attempted to undermine these values is a matter for them to decide.
Thank you for being a part of the Gab community. Your support is essential as we navigate these challenges and continue to champion the ideals of free expression and open discourse.
Sincerely,
Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King of kings
Click here to view a blog post version of this email and please share it!