Across the country, Democrats are moving to ban popular semiautomatic weapons as well as magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition. That includes, most recently, Virginia, which has careened to the left after the election of Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D). However, the most chilling such legislation may be in Minnesota, where state Sen. Matt Klein has introduced SF 4290. The law not only bans semiautomatic rifles and magazines with more than ten bullets, but also allows citizens to keep prior purchased weapons only if they agree to allow the police to enter their homes to inspect storage and safety conditions.
The Supreme Court has thus far dodged review of these bans. However, while courts have upheld the bans in places like Illinois, some of us believe that banning weapons like the AR-15 is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans.
However, what makes the Minnesota law so distinctive is the provision on home inspections. The law states that, in addition to securing state permission or certification for the possession of existing weapons, owners must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the
device to ensure compliance with this subdivision.”
So new sales of these models would be banned, while existing weapons could only be retained if owners agree to home inspections. It is part of an overall assault on gun rights not just to limit models but to add layers of regulation for those who wish to retain their weapons.
These laws will, hopefully, compel the Court to accept review of these laws and bring greater clarity on the scope of this individual right.
LOL, yeah good luck with that. No one in their right mind would sign up to be one of these inspectors. You leftosts have lost your damn minds. GFY’s.
Left-wing politicians score brownie points with their left-wing constituents by promising to violate the Constitution. Then if the law passes it gets struck down and that decision becomes precedent. Everybody wins. The left-wing politicans get reelected – which is what they cared about much more than the stupid law that they knew would never survive judicial review – and everyone else gets the precedent. Therefore, we can expect to see much more of this type of ridiculous unconstitutional legislation get passed in blue states.
Yes, gaming the justice system is what it is. Just as the other case regarding with or without prejudice was gaming disregarding standard rules? Unethical behavior is what it is.
This Proposition (Minn. SF 4290) is a interesting mix of 5th & 4th Amendment criteria.
The proposed Minnesota Law presupposes that You give up your 5th Amendment rights (That you do not need to be ‘informed’) prior to a 4th Amendment (reasonable) ‘search and seizure’.
Well that defiantly seems a bit conflicting. Particularly when LEO is searching the ATF Database to identify Citizen gun owners and they decide to just Pop-In!
Re. AI: ( Miranda rights search and seizure )
Miranda rights (5th Amendment) and search and seizure laws (4th Amendment) are distinct constitutional protections. Miranda requires police to inform custodial suspects of their right to silence and counsel before interrogation. Fourth Amendment protections prohibit unreasonable searches, generally requiring a warrant based on probable cause, unless exceptions like consent, plain view, or hot pursuit apply.
Key Aspects of Miranda Rights & Custodial Interrogation
• When Required: Miranda warnings must be given when a person is in custody (not free to leave) and subject to interrogation (questions likely to elicit an incriminating response).
• The Rights: Individuals have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney during questioning, and the right to have one appointed if they cannot afford one.
• Consequence of Violation: Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in court.
Key Aspects of Search and Seizure (4th Amendment)
•Warrant Requirement: Police generally need a warrant signed by a judge, supported by oath/affirmation, and specifically describing the place to be searched and items to be seized.
•Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:
◦ Consent: Voluntarily allowing a search.
◦Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: Searching a person and their immediate surroundings upon arrest.
◦Plain View: Evidence in open view.
◦Exigent Circumstances: Emergency situations, such as, hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or imminent destruction of evidence.
◦Vehicle Searches: If officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.
“Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”: The Fourth Amendment protects areas where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as inside a home.
Relationship and Violations
• If an arrest is made without a warrant, an evaluation of both 4th Amendment (search/seizure) and 5th Amendment (Miranda) rights is necessary to determine if evidence should be suppressed or charges dropped.
• Evidence found through an unlawful search (4th Amendment violation) is generally inadmissible.
• Violating Miranda (5th Amendment violation) suppresses confessions.
—
Ref.:
4th Amendment
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-fourth-amendment-mean
5th Amendment
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fifth-amendment-activities
[Link] supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/search-seizure/
My comment on Bruen is above.
You mean to tell me if you get rid of all the immigrants it will hurt our economy? Why didn’t anybody tell me before I voted for trump?
“Nearly all of Louisiana’s 20 crawfish processors are unable to hire migrant labor because of the federal cap on temporary visas, Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain told [Louisiana] legislators last week,” according to the Acadiana Advocate.
Trump has made a huge error.
Why would you impose a wide range of Tariffs, then go to War? (Anyone care to answer that – Anyone?)
If he knew all along that there was going to be a War, then you do not impose Tariffs, and at least Dumb-Ass should repealed all the Tariffs now that they have their War.
I don’t see the Macro or Micro economic reasoning in the D.C. Think Tanks reasoning.
Except for Pure Greed of profits made through the Arbitrage of the Markets that line the pockets of Wall Street Brokers.
Immigration, tariffs, economc reasoning in DC. Yeah, I see the connection to unconstitutional gun legislation in Minnesota (eye-roll).
^^^ “I see the connection” ^^^ Good so you understand that things have gotten so damn expensive that Minnesotans (eye-roll) are taking to Arms (guns) to eat and survive the brutal cold winters and scorching hot summers, as they watch their Corn & Soybean field go to rot and the price of crops plunge to zero and Oil cost go sky-high., Because some Dumb-Ass imposed Tariffs and started a War.
SO you see why the Minnesotans absolutely need gun legislation to curb the Masses from killing each other over Food. My god man, if the world ran only upon Finance, there wouldn’t be a single bit of Food to eat. You just keep feast upon those trillions of Fiat Dollars, you’ll see what comes of it and you.
Temporary Work Permits
Work An Go Home
No Path To Citizenship
No Vote
Justice Clarence Thomas complained on the record that for decades the Second Amendment was being treated as a second class right. The First Amendment is applied without being chopped up by 50 different State police powers. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen that he authored is the down stroke to make that true for the Second Amendment. No more balancing test outside of traditional regulation of what weapons were not allowed when the Constitution was adopted. The Second Amendment speaks to the people bringing their guns to form up a militia to fight. Then it was flintlocks as the state of the art. What do they bring today? The state of the art. What the military fights with. This is not about AR-15 style so-called assault weapons. This is about what we fight wars with. Today and tomorrow. I would suggest that the day will come when Bruen stares right into the eyes of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Licensing, fees, permission to have silencers, fully automatic weapons. Congress in the Big Beautiful Bill cancelled the tax on sound suppressors (silencers), and short barreled (under 18”) rifles and shotguns, and with that the taxing power underpinnings of that statute. Later national gun control legislation relies on the Commerce clause, and the 1934 statute’s retention of the taxing power basis for machine guns. So in the future SCOTUS is likely to be confronted with reconciling the Second Amendment as a human right in light of Bruen, with what remains of the taxing power and the Commerce Clause.
The above is my comment on Minnesota and Bruen
Defamation is speech.
Freedom of speech includes defamation and does not exclude defamation.
Judges enjoy NO power to modify, amend, or modify by interpretation the Constitution; no power to interpret is conferred by the Constitution.
Laws by Congress abridging defamation violate the 1st Amendment.
Laws by States abridging defamation violate the 14th Amendment.
Until you demonstrate that you know what state defamation laws actually say, you have zero credibility.
State laws define defamation as a false, unprivileged statement of fact published to a third party that injures a person’s or entity’s reputation. It consists of libel (written) and slander (spoken). While specific statutes vary by state, generally, plaintiffs must prove the statement was false, injurious, and, for public figures, made with “actual malice”.
I would let the inspection begin at the muzzle, then proceed directly to the ammunition.
Google pays $95 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8200 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $15k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern…………. GOOD LUCK.
==–=>>) https://earnsmartwithus.netlify.app/
Talking about home searches , forget guns, anyone with a mouth like carville should have a home search!!!
How do these people come up with this stuff? Trans children, search your home, no voter ID, open borders, 35 trillion debt, men in women’s sports, same old Trump harangue, lunatic judges, etc. Did I mention they had to have weed? There’s nothing that can be done with this mess bo made. He’s a total fake. Reprogram the computers and John McCain won that election.
What superstition is needed for thou shall not steal, murder, envy, lie, take a day off, produce counterfeit anything. Isn’t that just COMMON SENSE for social order?
Too 🤪
Hopefully, we will get back to a limited reading of the 2nd Amendment. The text states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What the Framers envisioned was a society, like the early Roman Republic, where adult men, mainly farmers, would, at a time of national crisis, put down their ploughs and pick up “arms” (at that time meaning muskets) and join together as a citizen army. It is a beautiful vision, which now is anachronistic. Modern Americans are opposed to militia.
If the text of the 2nd Amendment is treated as binding, the narrow question is whether a type of gun would be ae weapon likely used by our army. Of course there is a subsidiary question: whether the owner of the weapon is a prospective member of a volunteer army.
EM the framers wrote about what they imagined, and it was NOT just about militias.
You can find cites of various framers all over the place brazenly noting that an armed people where the final defense against tyrannical government.
The framers did expect that when the nation needed every man over 16 would get the gun that many states REQUIRED that they own and come to the aide of the country.
They ALSO expected that should the government itself grow tyrannical that the last line of defense against tyranny was an armed populace.
The framers used Rome as a model – but NOT their only model.
I would further note that logically/gramatically the “militia clause” is a justification, it is NOT a limit.
Had the framers intended as you argue they would have written the 2nd amendment as
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They did NOT.
You’re hot, John Say…ouch
1. The Prefatory Clause
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
What it says: This clause identifies a “well-regulated militia” as essential for the safety of a free country.
What it means: Historically, this announced the purpose for which the right was codified—to ensure the effectiveness of a citizen militia that could defend the state and act as a check against a standing army or tyrannical government.
Legal Standing: In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that while this clause explains the “why,” it does not limit or expand the scope of the right described in the second part.
2. The Operative Clause
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What it says: This part commands that the people’s right to possess and carry weapons cannot be violated.
What it means: This is the core “command” of the amendment. The Supreme Court interprets “the people” as referring to all individual citizens, not just those in a militia.
Keep: To possess or own weapons.
Bear: To carry weapons for the purpose of “confrontation,” specifically for self-defense.
edwardmahl, Do you have any reasoned explanation for your claim, considering the the context of the 2nd Amendment places it squarely within the Bill of Rights’ listing of personal freedoms? You make an obtuse argument without considering the context of the document. Context is a base line requirement for reading comprehension of any text. Check the list…
First Amendment: Freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Second Amendment: Right to keep and bear arms.
Third Amendment: No quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent.
Fourth Amendment: Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; warrants require probable cause.
Fifth Amendment: Grand jury indictments, no double jeopardy, no self-incrimination, due process, just compensation for takings.
Sixth Amendment: Speedy, public criminal trial by jury, right to counsel, confront witnesses.
Seventh Amendment: Civil jury trials in federal cases, common law.
Eighth Amendment: No excessive bail/fines, no cruel or unusual punishment.
Turns out that the party that points and keeps screaming “FASCISTS!” is an actual Fascist party.
They embrace the ideology while reserving the name as an epithet without knowing its meaning and without knowing that it applies best to them.
Here is a saying that is trustworhty and true: the Left’s instincts are always totalitarian.
All laws are restrictions, thus you are right. Home inspections does nothing but introduce more oppression.
“It’s the [fascists], stupid!”
– James Carville
James Carville has bats in the belfry.