User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 1:17:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 2tired2run:
Reprehensible how? When the courts have clearly gone off the rails and become fully entrenched in political advocacy it's time for the other branches to step in a fulfill their constitutional responsibility as a check on the judiciary. The USSC was correct on their new deal rulings until FDR threatened them with packing the court. The irony of the outcome is that the court was fulfilling their role as a check on the executive and legislative branch until FDR's plan came to light. Traditionally the courts have been viewed as protecting the constitutional rights of groups in the minority or those with unpopular views. Now the courts have transitioned to protecting those rights they agree with and limiting the rights they disagree with. It's really unnerving to see abortion rights expanded while, 4th and 2nd amendment rights are trampled repeatedly. Now the courts are failing to fulfill their role as a neutral arbiter of constitutional rights and have assumed a means end approach to constitutional interpretation. It's time for either or both of the other branches to fulfill their constitutional role as a check on the courts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 2tired2run:
Originally Posted By dmnoid77:
There is a very fine line between acting as a check and acting as a puppet master. The latter being the more common tact as of late and a reprehensible thing for which to advocate. Reprehensible how? When the courts have clearly gone off the rails and become fully entrenched in political advocacy it's time for the other branches to step in a fulfill their constitutional responsibility as a check on the judiciary. The USSC was correct on their new deal rulings until FDR threatened them with packing the court. The irony of the outcome is that the court was fulfilling their role as a check on the executive and legislative branch until FDR's plan came to light. Traditionally the courts have been viewed as protecting the constitutional rights of groups in the minority or those with unpopular views. Now the courts have transitioned to protecting those rights they agree with and limiting the rights they disagree with. It's really unnerving to see abortion rights expanded while, 4th and 2nd amendment rights are trampled repeatedly. Now the courts are failing to fulfill their role as a neutral arbiter of constitutional rights and have assumed a means end approach to constitutional interpretation. It's time for either or both of the other branches to fulfill their constitutional role as a check on the courts. That Constitutional role should be satisfied through the nomination and/or impeachment processes rooted in deeper rationale than partisan political opinion. I'm sure that is what you were suggesting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 4:13:09 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. Good question. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2016 4:26:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 5:28:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 7:46:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. Doesn't matter anymore. Heller put its own gloss on Miller, reasoning that historically, militia service involved bringing privately owned arms that were in common use, and SBSs and MGs are not in common use. Basically, Heller re-read Miller as an application of Heller's newly announced common use test. What you and I think Miller meant doesn't matter; Heller is the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation of Miller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 10:28:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: HenryKnoxFineBooks]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Exactly. We all (rightly) object that Heller obscured the 2A's anti-tyranny purpose by focusing on self-defense, but logically, what else could the Court have done? You don't ask courts for judicially unenforceable rights. You ask them for rights that courts can actually vindicate, and a right to revolt is not among them. It is illogical to waltz into court and say "hey, the government (of which you courts are a part) has become or is becoming tyrannical; give me the arms that the government took away so that I can resist you!" If it really is time to take up arms and resist tyranny, it is time to take up arms, not file a lawsuit. In other words, although a primary purpose of the 2A was to keep the populace armed as a deterrent to tyranny, the courts cannot fully vindicate such a right. Now it starts to make a little more sense why Heller distinguished between the **purpose* of the 2A announced in its "prefatory clause" and the judicially enforceable **content** of the right announced in its "operative clause." Taking this one analytical step further, it is illogical for a constitution to guarantee a right to revolution. Constitutions exist to place democratically and judicially enforceable limits on government power, and their operation assumes a government that, although it may not operate perfectly within those constraints at any given point in time, is capable of being brought back into line through legal means. Revolution is an indictment of the Constitution itself; it asserts that the Constitution has failed to constrain government power, and that violent overthrow should be employed to create a new and better system. No constitution can logically guarantee a right to its own destruction. Even apart from the mechanical problems of guaranteeing such a right (how do courts decide when government has become tyrannical, and how can they be impartial on such a question?), revolution is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution itself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By MNGearhead:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses.   While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? Who's court will enforce it? The tyrants that have been thrown out? Exactly. We all (rightly) object that Heller obscured the 2A's anti-tyranny purpose by focusing on self-defense, but logically, what else could the Court have done? You don't ask courts for judicially unenforceable rights. You ask them for rights that courts can actually vindicate, and a right to revolt is not among them. It is illogical to waltz into court and say "hey, the government (of which you courts are a part) has become or is becoming tyrannical; give me the arms that the government took away so that I can resist you!" If it really is time to take up arms and resist tyranny, it is time to take up arms, not file a lawsuit. In other words, although a primary purpose of the 2A was to keep the populace armed as a deterrent to tyranny, the courts cannot fully vindicate such a right. Now it starts to make a little more sense why Heller distinguished between the **purpose* of the 2A announced in its "prefatory clause" and the judicially enforceable **content** of the right announced in its "operative clause." Taking this one analytical step further, it is illogical for a constitution to guarantee a right to revolution. Constitutions exist to place democratically and judicially enforceable limits on government power, and their operation assumes a government that, although it may not operate perfectly within those constraints at any given point in time, is capable of being brought back into line through legal means. Revolution is an indictment of the Constitution itself; it asserts that the Constitution has failed to constrain government power, and that violent overthrow should be employed to create a new and better system. No constitution can logically guarantee a right to its own destruction. Even apart from the mechanical problems of guaranteeing such a right (how do courts decide when government has become tyrannical, and how can they be impartial on such a question?), revolution is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution itself. Texas Constitution THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States. Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 11:04:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
You're fucking nuts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Exactly. We all (rightly) object that Heller obscured the 2A's anti-tyranny purpose by focusing on self-defense, but logically, what else could the Court have done? You don't ask courts for judicially unenforceable rights. You ask them for rights that courts can actually vindicate, and a right to revolt is not among them. It is illogical to waltz into court and say "hey, the government (of which you courts are a part) has become or is becoming tyrannical; give me the arms that the government took away so that I can resist you!" If it really is time to take up arms and resist tyranny, it is time to take up arms, not file a lawsuit. In other words, although a primary purpose of the 2A was to keep the populace armed as a deterrent to tyranny, the courts cannot fully vindicate such a right. Now it starts to make a little more sense why Heller distinguished between the **purpose* of the 2A announced in its "prefatory clause" and the judicially enforceable **content** of the right announced in its "operative clause." Taking this one analytical step further, it is illogical for a constitution to guarantee a right to revolution. Constitutions exist to place democratically and judicially enforceable limits on government power, and their operation assumes a government that, although it may not operate perfectly within those constraints at any given point in time, is capable of being brought back into line through legal means. Revolution is an indictment of the Constitution itself; it asserts that the Constitution has failed to constrain government power, and that violent overthrow should be employed to create a new and better system. No constitution can logically guarantee a right to its own destruction. Even apart from the mechanical problems of guaranteeing such a right (how do courts decide when government has become tyrannical, and how can they be impartial on such a question?), revolution is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution itself. Your logic is painfully, illogical. If a Constitution is there to protect the people from Tyranny, and Tyranny comes about due to the government FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION, then it is solely the GOVERNMENT, acting outside the constitution, that has lead to the tyranny. Our CURRENT GOVERNMENT and its actions PROVE this exact scenario. Obamacare, CCWs, Machine-gun bans, gun registration, "1st amendment areas", etc. etc. etc. Simply keeping our current, completely adequate Constitution, jailing/hanging the current Administration and every Judge, of every court, who has upheld the current repression and re-instating a complete new congress and judiciary, would be a fix for the current status. No need for a new constitution, just the need TO MAKE MOTHERFUCKERS PAY for what they have done, end of story. Ive said it before, ill say it another 1000 times. Once the tyrants start swinging from TREES, you will have much of the rest tucking tail and running. Sometimes, all you need to do, is haul off and slap the shit out of your punk ass kids, so that they know momma and daddy AINT FUCKING AROUND ANYMORE... You're fucking nuts. But he has precedent. I'll donate a spool of fresh rope. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 12:44:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. There was NO EVIDENCE introduced in the case at all. The was no trial. It is disingenuous for the court to have made such a ruling. In fact, it was no less than judicial fraud. Once again: The outcome of the case was decided before it was ever filed. I suggest everyone who still insists on believing otherwise read The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/6/2016 10:55:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Star_Lord]
[#9]
Nolo can you tell us when the deadline is for you to file an appeal in the 5th? (No litigation strategy is requested on if you will actually appeal since the enemy is no doubt listening. :) ) Thanks! (And remember guys Regulation 46A applies to all posts on this page guys... :)
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/8/2016 1:04:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Timberwulfen]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Star_Lord:
Nolo can you tell us when the deadline is for you to file an appeal in the 5th? (No litigation strategy is requested on if you will actually appeal since the enemy is no doubt listening. :) ) Thanks! (And remember guys Regulation 46A applies to all posts on this page guys... :) arhem ækhra idh.  <hint: Rom>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2016 1:18:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen: arhem ækhra idh. <hint: Rom>Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen: Originally Posted By Star_Lord: Nolo can you tell us when the deadline is for you to file an appeal in the 5th? (No litigation strategy is requested on if you will actually appeal since the enemy is no doubt listening. :) ) Thanks! (And remember guys Regulation 46A applies to all posts on this page guys... :) arhem ækhra idh. <hint: Rom> |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2016 1:19:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
There was NO EVIDENCE introduced in the case at all. The was no trial. It is disingenuous for the court to have made such a ruling. In fact, it was no less than judicial fraud. Once again: The outcome of the case was decided before it was ever filed. I suggest everyone who still insists on believing otherwise read The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By NCUrk:
Quick question on NFA and some of the BS we have to deal with. Whats the difference in a 10 day waiting period being unconstitutional if you already own firearms (Yes, I understand there should be no wait, but for sake of argument, please bear with me) and NFA making you wait for a Tax Stamp if you already have one or more? Fed Judge already stated the first was wrong and struck it down. A federal district court judge recently ruled that California’s mandatory 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment as applied to individuals who already lawfully possess at least one firearm that is registered to them in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) Automated Firearms System (AFS), or who possess a valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license. The ruling also mentions those who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE), but they would still need a firearm registered in the AFS to be entitled to the exception from the 10-day waiting period. The Federal judicial gods have repeatedly held that the rights secured by the Second Amendment DO NOT include the right to possess weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. See for example, U.S. v. Miller. For more recent examples, see the opinions in the cases under discussion. In other words, the two situations are in no way similar, in terms of the law. They only held that because Miller's legal counsel didn't provide evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use by any military, militia, or could be useful in a militia scenario. There was NO EVIDENCE introduced in the case at all. The was no trial. It is disingenuous for the court to have made such a ruling. In fact, it was no less than judicial fraud. Once again: The outcome of the case was decided before it was ever filed. I suggest everyone who still insists on believing otherwise read The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller And yet it continues to be used as precedent to this day. The 20th Century was so fucked up on legislative and judicial matters. Wish we could erase it all and get a do-over. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2016 1:35:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
And yet it continues to be used as precedent to this day. The 20th Century was so fucked up on legislative and judicial matters. Wish we could erase it all and get a do-over. Miller remained precedent because it contributed to the goal. A "do over" would not solve the problem. The new case would reach the same result, perhaps be another route. See for example Heller which is the original source of the words from McDonald which were cited to justify the result in Hollis. See the slip opinion at page 15. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2016 2:52:41 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Star_Lord:
Nolo can you tell us when the deadline is for you to file an appeal in the 5th? (No litigation strategy is requested on if you will actually appeal since the enemy is no doubt listening. :) ) Thanks! (And remember guys Regulation 46A applies to all posts on this page guys... :) petition for rehearing would be due around august 12. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 4:57:55 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Miller remained precedent because it contributed to the goal. A "do over" would not solve the problem. The new case would reach the same result, perhaps be another route. See for example Heller which is the original source of the words from McDonald which were cited to justify the result in Hollis. See the slip opinion at page 15. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
And yet it continues to be used as precedent to this day. The 20th Century was so fucked up on legislative and judicial matters. Wish we could erase it all and get a do-over. Miller remained precedent because it contributed to the goal. A "do over" would not solve the problem. The new case would reach the same result, perhaps be another route. See for example Heller which is the original source of the words from McDonald which were cited to justify the result in Hollis. See the slip opinion at page 15. I meant ALL of it. All the laws, all Constitutional amendments. Reset to 1900. There would be no need for Miller or McDonald, or even Heller, because there would be no NFA, no GCA 68, no Hughes Amendment, no Lyndon Johnson Great Society bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2016 8:50:43 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
I meant ALL of it. All the laws, all Constitutional amendments. Reset to 1900. There would be no need for Miller or McDonald, or even Heller, because there would be no NFA, no GCA 68, no Hughes Amendment, no Lyndon Johnson Great Society bullshit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
And yet it continues to be used as precedent to this day. The 20th Century was so fucked up on legislative and judicial matters. Wish we could erase it all and get a do-over. Miller remained precedent because it contributed to the goal. A "do over" would not solve the problem. The new case would reach the same result, perhaps be another route. See for example Heller which is the original source of the words from McDonald which were cited to justify the result in Hollis. See the slip opinion at page 15. I meant ALL of it. All the laws, all Constitutional amendments. Reset to 1900. There would be no need for Miller or McDonald, or even Heller, because there would be no NFA, no GCA 68, no Hughes Amendment, no Lyndon Johnson Great Society bullshit. All of it would come to pass again, perhaps in a slightly different form. The forces which brought about all that you have listed existed in this country long before 1900. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/12/2016 8:50:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
All of it would come to pass again, perhaps in a slightly different form. The forces which brought about all that you have listed existed in this country long before 1900. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
And yet it continues to be used as precedent to this day. The 20th Century was so fucked up on legislative and judicial matters. Wish we could erase it all and get a do-over. Miller remained precedent because it contributed to the goal. A "do over" would not solve the problem. The new case would reach the same result, perhaps be another route. See for example Heller which is the original source of the words from McDonald which were cited to justify the result in Hollis. See the slip opinion at page 15. I meant ALL of it. All the laws, all Constitutional amendments. Reset to 1900. There would be no need for Miller or McDonald, or even Heller, because there would be no NFA, no GCA 68, no Hughes Amendment, no Lyndon Johnson Great Society bullshit. All of it would come to pass again, perhaps in a slightly different form. The forces which brought about all that you have listed existed in this country long before 1900. Exactly! Id like to see DNA from, "the powers that be", see how deep (how long ago) the rabbit hole goes... |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 3:14:20 PM EDT
[#18]
I made an account to predict the result of this peaceful challenge in my first post. I explained that it would fail. If you'd like to fully restore the right to keep and bear arms, you'll have to take it back. It was a valiant effort Mr Nolo. Alas, the truth is no defense.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 6:34:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stateisevil:
I made an account to predict the result of this peaceful challenge in my first post. I explained that it would fail. If you'd like to fully restore the right to keep and bear arms, you'll have to take it back. It was a valiant effort Mr Nolo. Alas, the truth is no defense. lol. Slow day over on Subguns, eh? 1990 called, they want their board back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2016 2:14:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jcriley:
lol. Slow day over on Subguns, eh? 1990 called, they want their board back. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jcriley:
Originally Posted By stateisevil:
I made an account to predict the result of this peaceful challenge in my first post. I explained that it would fail. If you'd like to fully restore the right to keep and bear arms, you'll have to take it back. It was a valiant effort Mr Nolo. Alas, the truth is no defense. lol. Slow day over on Subguns, eh? 1990 called, they want their board back. No need to worry friend. The courts have found that it is a reasonable compromise on our privilege to bear some arms; all these checks and balances seem to be quite redundant. :^) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2016 7:21:52 PM EDT
[#21]
I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like "soon" has become "the 32nd of Never"...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2016 7:40:59 PM EDT
[#22]
The problem with all this is the decision that machineguns are not protected by the 2nd amendment. I could see them twisting logic and upholding Hughes and saying pre 86 were good to go, but stating they are not protected by the 2nd is dangerous. Is that decision truly reached because of Hughes or because they are NFA? How will it be interpreted in future cases that reference these cases as case law that negatively affect the status of other NFA items? Will pre 86 MGs, SBS, SRB, DDs and AOWs across the board soon be declared a privilege rather than a right based upon this decision and the registry simply closed?
If somehow a class of weapons were banned as "assault weapons", why not let them still be made and sold as NFA? At what point is any NFA item declared not protected and we see the inability of transfers due to more common items, such as the assault weapon, being potentially banned? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2016 4:40:26 PM EDT
[#23]
I will keep supporting this fight, but I have to admit to being weary and not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Can someone please explain where we go from here and what our options are.. I'm no lawyer, so almost everything that has happened recently has gone way over my head.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2016 4:43:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992: I will keep supporting this fight, but I have to admit to being weary and not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Can someone please explain where we go from here and what our options are.. I'm no lawyer, so almost everything that has happened recently has gone way over my head. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2016 8:49:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
There is nowhere to go unless R's win the presidency. Even then, getting picked up by the court is a slim probability. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
I will keep supporting this fight, but I have to admit to being weary and not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Can someone please explain where we go from here and what our options are.. I'm no lawyer, so almost everything that has happened recently has gone way over my head. I agree that the decisions that have come down in regards to straight application of 2A standing/scrutiny to full auto are troublesome. However, with the Hughes Amendment and the fixed pool of registered F/A out there, we have nothing to lose but a little money, and Nolo's and the Heller Foundation's time and effort. It would seem to me that there's some serious landmines the lower courts have created in their decisions in regards to the "Trusts vs. People" as legal entities that flies in the face of everything else regarding business, finance, estate, and tax laws, and a ton of other court precedent as they did anything and everything to wiggle out from under machine guns. Things that can turn into a real shit show for the courts, if some enterprising Lefty tile-crawler, or simply an opportunistic one, representing plaintiffs that don't want some business or a trust to have legal right to some property, or to some legal standing, could try and use. Something the very same courts would have to fall all over themselves trying to fix, lest decades of legal and financial structures suddenly have no legal rights or standing and billions of dollars of assets are suddenly at stake. This is why the ATF blinked when 41p became 41f, and they dropped CLEO sign-off for simple passive "notification". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2016 9:14:34 PM EDT
[#26]
We are going to file a petition for rehearing in the 5th. Still up in the air on cert for the third, but I'd really like to see the 5th grant my rehearing. I'll file it soon. We have 45 days from 6/30, so I'm not rushing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2016 1:19:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cbsaf:
The problem with all this is the decision that machineguns are not protected by the 2nd amendment. I could see them twisting logic and upholding Hughes and saying pre 86 were good to go, but stating they are not protected by the 2nd is dangerous. Is that decision truly reached because of Hughes or because they are NFA? How will it be interpreted in future cases that reference these cases as case law that negatively affect the status of other NFA items? Will pre 86 MGs, SBS, SRB, DDs and AOWs across the board soon be declared a privilege rather than a right based upon this decision and the registry simply closed? If somehow a class of weapons were banned as "assault weapons", why not let them still be made and sold as NFA? At what point is any NFA item declared not protected and we see the inability of transfers due to more common items, such as the assault weapon, being potentially banned? You're nipping at the issue which is that bureaucrats, politicians and judges are now able to classify arms as those that are protected and those that are not. As of right now with Heller and these cases it appears that about the only thing protected is a handgun in your home. Even taken in the most literal of historical meanings this shreds the 2nd amendment because under the current judicial precedent not even long arms are protected e.g. historically speaking muskets are not protected just as M16's are not protected. Both standard military issue in their respective time frame. The 3rd and 5th have both shot FA down and other courts are upholding the bans in NY CT CA etc. Frankly this is scary because when rights can be limited by saying the means to exercise those rights are not protected, then in reality there is no right at all. What is the next step to ban computers produced after 1986 because they generate and spread speech to fast therefore they are dangerous and unusual? Remember .gov and her agencies get the latest and greatest but we're limited to pre'86 with a $200 tax stamp and a 6-12 month wait. Can you imagine the uproar had printing presses been banned during the height of the civil rights movement or blogs banned during the Iraq war or requiring a tax stamp for every story Druge printed? I think there's a missed opportunity here in not tying the 2nd amendment directly to the first and using 1st amendment precedent to argue the unconstitutionality of the laws limiting 2nd amendment rights. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2016 9:41:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Freedom_Or_DEATH]
[#28]
A good question for the courts is, if an organized movement to illegally manufacture machine guns, in excess of a few hundred thousand, would transform them into "common use" then therefore make them "legal"? I dont think they have ever defined that "common use" must constitute LEGAL use? Maybe a federal case that marijuana should be de-regulated since legal marijuana use is surely more than 300,000 people. This could be easily proven with "medical marijuana cards"...
A simple moratorium of sorts, allowing people to "register" without threat of prosection (persecution), for a "count" to prove the numbers would be simple for congress to organize... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 11:43:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
A good question for the courts is, if an organized movement to illegally manufacture machine guns, in excess of a few hundred thousand, would transform them into "common use" then therefore make them "legal"? I dont think they have ever defined that "common use" must constitute LEGAL use? Maybe a federal case that marijuana should be de-regulated since legal marijuana use is surely more than 300,000 people. This could be easily proven with "medical marijuana cards"... A simple moratorium of sorts, allowing people to "register" without threat of prosection (persecution), for a "count" to prove the numbers would be simple for congress to organize... Amnesty registration is already provisioned for, just hasn't been authorized 
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-3/download |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 12:53:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
We are going to file a petition for rehearing in the 5th. Still up in the air on cert for the third, but I'd really like to see the 5th grant my rehearing. I'll file it soon. We have 45 days from 6/30, so I'm not rushing it. Thanks for fighting the good fight! |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 7/29/2016 12:04:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Full Auto Commonly used by US Military: see link NEW M4A1 in use by US Military include full auto
So why are these not available to lawful citizens. Seems to comply with the high standard of Miller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2016 1:40:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rinteln1:
Full Auto Commonly used by US Military: see link NEW M4A1 in use by US Military include full auto So why are these not available to lawful citizens. Seems to comply with the high standard of Miller. Welcome to 2008. The militia has zero to do with the right secured by the Second Amendment. I suggest you start by reading Heller. Then you can read Watson followed by Hollis, especially page 15 of the decision. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2016 10:28:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NoloContendere]
[#33]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 12:27:22 PM EDT
[#34]
bump with petition stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 12:47:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryThank you for fighting the good fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 1:51:51 PM EDT
[#36]
You're a good man Nolo. We applaud you Sir.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 2:10:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Looks like you did that as politely as possible
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 10:40:09 PM EDT
[#38]
How is the new itar bullshit going to affect ths?
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 11:00:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xviperx420:
How is the new itar bullshit going to affect ths? There is no part of this case involved in any type of importation or exportation so how could it? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 11:05:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Does anyone know of any type of case law that defines the difference between a local/state/federal "agent" and a civilian in regards to any other constitutional right? I think it may be time to challenge the ability of a cop/fed/soldier to be in possession of something, "dangerous and unusual". Maybe we can get them to tell us the difference between one humans ability to be "trusted" vs anothers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2016 1:09:13 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Does anyone know of any type of case law that defines the difference between a local/state/federal "agent" and a civilian in regards to any other constitutional right? I think it may be time to challenge the ability of a cop/fed/soldier to be in possession of something, "dangerous and unusual". Maybe we can get them to tell us the difference between one humans ability to be "trusted" vs another's? Or in the case of Mr Hollis, who is a reserve Marine officer, why is he only "trusted" 2 days a month and 2 weeks a year? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2016 9:21:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Nolo, if you're looking for plaintiffs to challenge the new ITAR rule w/, let me know.
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/31/2016 7:34:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Or in the case of Mr Hollis, who is a reserve Marine officer, why is he only "trusted" 2 days a month and 2 weeks a year? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Does anyone know of any type of case law that defines the difference between a local/state/federal "agent" and a civilian in regards to any other constitutional right? I think it may be time to challenge the ability of a cop/fed/soldier to be in possession of something, "dangerous and unusual". Maybe we can get them to tell us the difference between one humans ability to be "trusted" vs another's? Or in the case of Mr Hollis, who is a reserve Marine officer, why is he only "trusted" 2 days a month and 2 weeks a year? Apparently mere mortals cannot be trusted, only Devil Dogs...=) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 1:47:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Apparently mere mortals cannot be trusted, only Devil Dogs...=) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Does anyone know of any type of case law that defines the difference between a local/state/federal "agent" and a civilian in regards to any other constitutional right? I think it may be time to challenge the ability of a cop/fed/soldier to be in possession of something, "dangerous and unusual". Maybe we can get them to tell us the difference between one humans ability to be "trusted" vs another's? Or in the case of Mr Hollis, who is a reserve Marine officer, why is he only "trusted" 2 days a month and 2 weeks a year? Apparently mere mortals cannot be trusted, only Devil Dogs...=) 
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 2:19:08 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Does anyone know of any type of case law that defines the difference between a local/state/federal "agent" and a civilian in regards to any other constitutional right? I think it may be time to challenge the ability of a cop/fed/soldier to be in possession of something, "dangerous and unusual". Maybe we can get them to tell us the difference between one humans ability to be "trusted" vs another's? Or in the case of Mr Hollis, who is a reserve Marine officer, why is he only "trusted" 2 days a month and 2 weeks a year? Apparently mere mortals cannot be trusted, only Devil Dogs...=) https://cdn.meme.am/instances/62098804.jpg WUT? I think you missed the joke? lol |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 8:28:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Am I the only one who, in simplest terms, believes that the ONLY legitimate and Constitutionally lawful "national firearms act" is the 2nd Amendment itself?
IMHO any and every piece of legislation passed since then is de facto UN-Constitutional as they all restrict and infringe upon the Right in all of its' pre-existing glory... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 10:03:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NY12ga: Am I the only one who, in simplest terms, believes that the ONLY legitimate and Constitutionally lawful "national firearms act" is the 2nd Amendment itself? IMHO any and every piece of legislation passed since then is de facto UN-Constitutional as they all restrict and infringe upon the Right in all of its' pre-existing glory... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 12:17:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
No, you are not the only one. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By NY12ga:
Am I the only one who, in simplest terms, believes that the ONLY legitimate and Constitutionally lawful "national firearms act" is the 2nd Amendment itself? IMHO any and every piece of legislation passed since then is de facto UN-Constitutional as they all restrict and infringe upon the Right in all of its' pre-existing glory... Not by a long shot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 6:43:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher:
Nolo, if you're looking for plaintiffs to challenge the new ITAR rule w/, let me know. Actually we need to send tons of letters to our Congress critters. ( See images of the pile of forms sent in on that $2 million in stamps day) They need to exercise there budgetary rule making powers to change ITAR such that the registration fee is totally waved for any entity which will not be involved in any export activities. Congressional rules simplified: They who hold the purse strings make the rules. 
Make it so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 10:03:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ProfGAB101:
Actually we need to send tons of letters to our Congress critters. ( See images of the pile of forms sent in on that $2 million in stamps day) They need to exercise there budgetary rule making powers to change ITAR such that the registration fee is totally waved for any entity which will not be involved in any export activities. Congressional rules simplified: They who hold the purse strings make the rules.
Make it so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ProfGAB101:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Nolo, if you're looking for plaintiffs to challenge the new ITAR rule w/, let me know. Actually we need to send tons of letters to our Congress critters. ( See images of the pile of forms sent in on that $2 million in stamps day) They need to exercise there budgetary rule making powers to change ITAR such that the registration fee is totally waved for any entity which will not be involved in any export activities. Congressional rules simplified: They who hold the purse strings make the rules.
Make it so. can someone point me in the direction of what this new ITAR rule is? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
