User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 12:29:54 PM EST
[#1]
I’m glad Virginia happened. It lets the Justices know the 2nd is important to us.
Now the question is Roberts. What will the other 4 have to agree on (by lowering our rights) to keep it 5-4? If we have 5 Thomas justices the 2nd would be protected and we would not be dealing with this BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 2:32:19 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July. But it turns out that wasn't what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York's abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism. https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/4251054002 But but but but.... but Trump is a New York democrat and wants to take our guns away. Trump FUCKED US HARD in the ass and took bump stocks and will take ALL gun accessories, because he is a New York democrat. I am not voting for Trump because reasons so a Democract can win in 2020 and take our guns. Trump is is a gun grabbing piece of shit and we should elect a Democrat instead. [/nevertrump] |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 8:26:23 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can they expand God given rights? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 9:39:30 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad Virginia happened. It lets the Justices know the 2nd is important to us. Now the question is Roberts. What will the other 4 have to agree on (by lowering our rights) to keep it 5-4? If we have 5 Thomas justices the 2nd would be protected and we would not be dealing with this BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 9:52:29 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m glad Virginia happened. It lets the Justices know the 2nd is important to us. Now the question is Roberts. What will the other 4 have to agree on (by lowering our rights) to keep it 5-4? If we have 5 Thomas justices the 2nd would be protected and we would not be dealing with this BS. But, there is a new sheriff in town, and he is making outstanding selections for the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2020 10:01:45 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know. I was being sarcastic. If they do any ruling that is remotely positive it will be so narrow as to really not do anything. The court just doesnt ever do sweeping gun cases. Even Heller really didnt change much outside of DC and even there guns might as well still be illegal. Heller and McDonald were decided on narrow 5-4 decisions, with Kennedy, a moderate being the swing. Supposedly Kennedy wouldn't go any more to the right on those decisions, so we got the best we could. Kavanaugh was a big improvement over Kennedy so now Roberts is the swing vote. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 6:08:10 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bush really screwed us with Roberts. With 55 GOP Senators, he could have essentially nominated anyone and gotten them confirmed He could have even nominated Scalia as chief justice, then picked someone else instead of Roberts for the vacancy. But, there is a new sheriff in town, and he is making outstanding selections for the courts. Just like Daddy appointed Souter. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 6:43:32 AM EST
[#8]
Let's face it...part of the problem is that the plaintiffs didn't ask for a remedy involving the 2A...they just wanted the right to transport. They never guessed that their overlords would simply change the law.
The people in power will do anything to keep it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 7:48:54 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's face it...part of the problem is that the plaintiffs didn't ask for a remedy involving the 2A...they just wanted the right to transport. They never guessed that their overlords would simply change the law. The people in power will do anything to keep it. someone is writing an opinion at this point. unless they are dragging their feet to avoid taking another 2a case. even if they are writing an opinion, I bet it's very narrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 7:53:03 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m glad Virginia happened. It lets the Justices know the 2nd is important to us. Now the question is Roberts. What will the other 4 have to agree on (by lowering our rights) to keep it 5-4? If we have 5 Thomas justices the 2nd would be protected and we would not be dealing with this BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 7:55:49 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The reason they "don't do sweeping gun cases" is that we would have lost until just a few years ago. The only thing worse than the USSC not hearing a case is them hearing it, then ruling against it and setting precedence. Heller and McDonald were decided on narrow 5-4 decisions, with Kennedy, a moderate being the swing. Supposedly Kennedy wouldn't go any more to the right on those decisions, so we got the best we could. Kavanaugh was a big improvement over Kennedy so now Roberts is the swing vote. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 7:58:41 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 8:01:15 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:38:07 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? I remember the excitement after Trump was elected-finally there would be justice. Then the excuses came. It's only been a |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:43:25 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:44:06 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 9:48:56 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:25:06 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I off base here? Didn’t Heller have “...common use for lawful purposes...” in it? Doesn’t that make “assault weapons bans” unconstitutional? It’s not a crazy reach to come to that conclusion is it? Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:28:20 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bush really screwed us with Roberts. With 55 GOP Senators, he could have essentially nominated anyone and gotten them confirmed He could have even nominated Scalia as chief justice, then picked someone else instead of Roberts for the vacancy. But, there is a new sheriff in town, and he is making outstanding selections for the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:30:08 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Surely he his getting ready to start opening the millions of sealed indictments they have.............. I remember the excitement after Trump was elected-finally there would be justice. Then the excuses came. It's only been a 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:30:40 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is too busy indicting every all-you-can-eat buffet in the DC area |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:31:39 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Have we got our rights back yet? Good times! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:31:57 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hey...we got justice for juicy....so maybe he's working his way down the list of people who make shit up for political purposes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm still waiting for AG Barr to indict ANYONE................ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:32:28 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Remember when he declined to go after Comey after the IG referred him? Good times! 
I think that is what carguym was saying might have begun the "trust Barr" era........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:32:31 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bush really screwed us with Roberts. With 55 GOP Senators, he could have essentially nominated anyone and gotten them confirmed He could have even nominated Scalia as chief justice, then picked someone else instead of Roberts for the vacancy. But, there is a new sheriff in town, and he is making outstanding selections for the courts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I’m glad Virginia happened. It lets the Justices know the 2nd is important to us. Now the question is Roberts. What will the other 4 have to agree on (by lowering our rights) to keep it 5-4? If we have 5 Thomas justices the 2nd would be protected and we would not be dealing with this BS. But, there is a new sheriff in town, and he is making outstanding selections for the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:35:21 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I off base here? Didn’t Heller have “...common use for lawful purposes...” in it? Doesn’t that make “assault weapons bans” unconstitutional? It’s not a crazy reach to come to that conclusion is it? Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Again, they'll simply ignore SCOTUS. They're trying to ban ALL semi-autos despite Heller clearly holding this is flagrantly unconstitutional. They are liars, and will lie & evade until they are forcibly stopped. In a just America, Trump would be deploying Guard or Army troops to put down these little tyrants in conjunction with a court ruling like Heller. But that ain't happening, leaving us as the only theoretical mechanism for stopping the abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:39:07 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I off base here? Didn't Heller have "...common use for lawful purposes..." in it? Doesn't that make "assault weapons bans" unconstitutional? It's not a crazy reach to come to that conclusion is it? Please correct me if I'm wrong or being misled! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I'm wrong or being misled! What the SC says one year, means nothing to what they may say in the future. They don't use the Constitution to decide, they use past laws (easier to twist around to the way they want). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:46:44 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More importantly, Heller very carefully laid out how strict scrutiny must always be applied where the RKBA was considered. Lower courts consistently held that whatever gun control measure up for examination didn't impact the RKBA despite clearly restricting possession or use, ergo the strict test did not apply. Again, they'll simply ignore SCOTUS. They're trying to ban ALL semi-autos despite Heller clearly holding this is flagrantly unconstitutional. They are liars, and will lie & evade until they are forcibly stopped. In a just America, Trump would be deploying Guard or Army troops to put down these little tyrants in conjunction with a court ruling like Heller. But that ain't happening, leaving us as the only theoretical mechanism for stopping the abuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Again, they'll simply ignore SCOTUS. They're trying to ban ALL semi-autos despite Heller clearly holding this is flagrantly unconstitutional. They are liars, and will lie & evade until they are forcibly stopped. In a just America, Trump would be deploying Guard or Army troops to put down these little tyrants in conjunction with a court ruling like Heller. But that ain't happening, leaving us as the only theoretical mechanism for stopping the abuse. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:53:07 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Again, they'll simply ignore SCOTUS. They're trying to ban ALL semi-autos despite Heller clearly holding this is flagrantly unconstitutional. They are liars, and will lie & evade until they are forcibly stopped. In a just America, Trump would be deploying Guard or Army troops to put down these little tyrants in conjunction with a court ruling like Heller. But that ain't happening, leaving us as the only theoretical mechanism for stopping the abuse. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:56:12 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The left is still trying to push the false claim that AR-15s are not common and have no valid lawful use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled!  . The libs hate me! Their key phrase is “weapons of war”. Weapons of war = AR15. ??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 10:59:21 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. Quote HistoryQuoted: please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. "This would be a strange case in which to go big," says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "Yet the stakes going forward are potentially huge." We all know Duke is populated by New Yorkers. Is this an anti-gun think tank or something, or are they fighting the good fight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:04:28 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if they were going to moot this case...it seems they would have done it already. someone is writing an opinion at this point. unless they are dragging their feet to avoid taking another 2a case. even if they are writing an opinion, I bet it's very narrow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's face it...part of the problem is that the plaintiffs didn't ask for a remedy involving the 2A...they just wanted the right to transport. They never guessed that their overlords would simply change the law. The people in power will do anything to keep it. someone is writing an opinion at this point. unless they are dragging their feet to avoid taking another 2a case. even if they are writing an opinion, I bet it's very narrow. They cannot moot the case because the issue was raised in the first place. That means no matter what happens the case is not moot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:09:19 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I off base here? Didn’t Heller have “...common use for lawful purposes...” in it? Doesn’t that make “assault weapons bans” unconstitutional? It’s not a crazy reach to come to that conclusion is it? Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or the court's proclamations in this area would be ignored many places like the are now. Please correct me if I’m wrong or being misled! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:11:16 AM EST
[#34]
Please read this carefully:
No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:26:52 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@duke23433 We all know Duke is populated by New Yorkers. Is this an anti-gun think tank or something, or are they fighting the good fight? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. "This would be a strange case in which to go big," says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "Yet the stakes going forward are potentially huge." We all know Duke is populated by New Yorkers. Is this an anti-gun think tank or something, or are they fighting the good fight? I had the idea of arguing that pistol permits were "content based regulations" which are given strict scrutiny under the 1A and she directed me to his work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:28:53 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:38:42 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heller settled nothing, it gave no usable level of scrutiny to use. Furthermore, Scalia gave the left 3 sentences worth of support for gun control which they have clung to, while giving us a lengthy opinion that amounts to pretty much the most confusing jurisprudence in existence to date Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. There are plenty of activist judges on the way to SCOTUS who will uphold anti gun laws and also ignore SCOTUS rulings (using creative "logic"), and by the time the case gets there, SCOTUS makeup may have changed. The process is broken and the Leftists are emboldened. They ignore the law and the rule of law. And it's time we do as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 11:49:02 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I honestly am not sure, ironically enough one of my professors just recommended yesterday that I get in touch with him over my paper I'm writing. I believe he is a strong proponent that we should treat 2A like the 1A. I've got an article of his I need to read today that my professor sent to me, so I'll see what I can glean from it. I had the idea of arguing that pistol permits were "content based regulations" which are given strict scrutiny under the 1A and she directed me to his work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. "This would be a strange case in which to go big," says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "Yet the stakes going forward are potentially huge." We all know Duke is populated by New Yorkers. Is this an anti-gun think tank or something, or are they fighting the good fight? I had the idea of arguing that pistol permits were "content based regulations" which are given strict scrutiny under the 1A and she directed me to his work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 12:01:47 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope that's the case. My con law professor was Dean Nichol and though as libtarded as it gets, he was cool. He helped me make a due process case for why i should get in state tuition, and it worked, and almost my entire time there I was in-state, despite being initially admitted as one of the 25% out of state in my class. I'm sure they've plugged that hole somehow since then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: please steer clear of giving constitutional case law summary if you're going to absolutely butcher it. Heller did not even come close to laying out strict scrutiny, and the dissent mocked Scalia for it. The reason lower courts are doing whatever the fuck they want is because there was no clear standard of review set in Heller. Sure, you could proposition that Heller stands for strict scrutiny, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but it didn't explicitly state it and if you give the liberal courts and inch they will take a mile, and it was enough wiggle room to let them run unchecked now for years. "This would be a strange case in which to go big," says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. "Yet the stakes going forward are potentially huge." We all know Duke is populated by New Yorkers. Is this an anti-gun think tank or something, or are they fighting the good fight? I had the idea of arguing that pistol permits were "content based regulations" which are given strict scrutiny under the 1A and she directed me to his work. 
Most satisfying moment I ever had was when he conceded that Heller likely stood for strict scrutiny. But it always goes back to the problem of it never being explicitly stated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 12:11:28 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard good things about him, I had Gerhardt. Guy is a wizard when it comes to that stuff, but sadly on the wrong side
Most satisfying moment I ever had was when he conceded that Heller likely stood for strict scrutiny. But it always goes back to the problem of it never being explicitly stated. Here's a video I did on it. Not just him, but 400 law professors testified that impeachment was too dangerous in 1998. Hypocrites.  Constitutional Lawyer Discusses the Hypocrisy of the 1998 Impeachment vs. the 2019 Impeachment |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 12:36:59 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup.
I think that is what carguym was saying might have begun the "trust Barr" era........... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Remember when he declined to go after Comey after the IG referred him? Good times!
I think that is what carguym was saying might have begun the "trust Barr" era........... I did slide to the optimistic side for a short bit when Trump got elected,but that was very short lived. When I see the gun laws (real gun laws,not little bullshit stuff-NY SAFE ACT and Sullivan Act type shit) start being overturned as unConstitutional,I will gladly admit I was wrong. Looking back over the decades and how things have gone,I don't expect to be making any apologies anytime soon........... ETA-Same with many shitbags in DC getting locked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:12:12 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will never moot a case like this once it is brought in because it is a direct constitutional issue. It does not matter if legislators pull the law back, the supreme court has a legal duty to make sure that they never try to do it again. They cannot moot the case because the issue was raised in the first place. That means no matter what happens the case is not moot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's face it...part of the problem is that the plaintiffs didn't ask for a remedy involving the 2A...they just wanted the right to transport. They never guessed that their overlords would simply change the law. The people in power will do anything to keep it. someone is writing an opinion at this point. unless they are dragging their feet to avoid taking another 2a case. even if they are writing an opinion, I bet it's very narrow. They cannot moot the case because the issue was raised in the first place. That means no matter what happens the case is not moot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:42:03 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They will never moot a case like this once it is brought in because it is a direct constitutional issue. It does not matter if legislators pull the law back, the supreme court has a legal duty to make sure that they never try to do it again. They cannot moot the case because the issue was raised in the first place. That means no matter what happens the case is not moot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:44:28 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cases like this one were the main reason I voted for Trump. But, what do you do when the court rules poorly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:54:25 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:56:46 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. Heller established the 2nd as an individual right. Miller and the history of the 2nd should mean AR15s are protected, but it isn't explicitly spelled out, hence the antis will continue to do anti things. Once it is explicitly spelled out by the courts, they will comply, but only as much as they have to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 1:58:10 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heller settled nothing, it gave no usable level of scrutiny to use. Furthermore, Scalia gave the left 3 sentences worth of support for gun control which they have clung to, while giving us a lengthy opinion that amounts to pretty much the most confusing jurisprudence in existence to date |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 2:05:57 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep,that's why I'm pretty much 100% pessimistic. I did slide to the optimistic side for a short bit when Trump got elected,but that was very short lived. Even a solid pro-gun POTUS would have trouble on that front, it isn't easy getting good stuff passed in Congress. The Trump effect on this will be in the courts. It would be good if he replaced a lefty justice to give us 6-3 for a good ruling on AWBs and mag bans. I had to wait 45 years for the court to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. This doesn't happen fast, and it requires the right set of judges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 2:07:19 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like most of Arfcom, you misunderstand how Qualified Immunity works. When a law is clearly established and a government agent violates the civil right the law protects, the government official LOSES Qualified Immunity and may not be indemnified by the government agency for any judgments. If you think a dental plan is worth losing my house, pension and future earnings, you're sadly mistaken. Also, it's pretty well established that cops really cannot be disciplined for not enforcing laws found unconstitutional by SCOTUS. It gives alot of cover for pro-2A cops. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please read this carefully: No matter how unequivocally the US Supreme Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment it will not stop state and local legislatures from passing blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws. The battle at the national level is unfortunately becoming irrelevant when the gun grabbers have already realized that in order to win they need to do so at the local level. And from what I see they are winning. For example: Heller should have settled anything approaching a ban on AR-15's. Did it? I don't think so. Prove me wrong. As soon as SCOTUS rules on this, New York will just pass another law in blatant violation of it. They'll just get a bunch of lawyers to make it as SCOTUS proof as possible. Where indemnity comes in, is if say the police officer carjacks the citizen. The citizen sues under 1983 b/c he was acting under color of law. But the employer fires the cop, he's indicted, and heading to jail probably. Then the insurance carrier for the employer sends the cop a letter informing him they have no duty to provide a legal defense, nor indemnify him, b/c his conduct falls under the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance police. BTDT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2020 2:09:03 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable thought. But, what do you do when the court rules poorly? That's the reason you sometimes need to wait, and why you don't want to rush things through that are not ready. With 5-4 and relying on a Roberts, you need to be careful with your case. |
|
|
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.
