|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 13, 2018, 11:58 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
California cases and Heller
https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/...e-quietly-elim
Two cases came out negatively for the RKBA in California. The details are discussed in the article and it points out how decisions are politically motivated for some judges and the Heller language again (whether you think so or not) contained prose that can be used as rationales for gun control (whether you think the decision was brilliant or not).
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 13, 2018, 12:44 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Ayup. Here's the whole article, in two paragraphs:
Quote:
|
|
May 13, 2018, 12:45 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
i'm not surprised that a federal judge blessed the CA Assault Weapons Control Act.
i ain't a lawyer nor do i play one on TV. However, i am somewhat adept at reading rather plain English. i will say again: Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights. From the Heller decision: Quote:
Last edited by thallub; May 13, 2018 at 01:12 PM. |
|
May 13, 2018, 05:53 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
I think by now we have all seen that Heller was fatally flawed, most likely by Mr. Scalia's need to keep Justice Kennedy on board with the majority. It doesn't help that a corrupt and ideology-driven lower court system has no compunctions about cherry picking Heller in order to use it to promote, rather than limit, gun control. What's unfortunate is that the SCOTUS allows this to happen, but the reality is that it's unlikely that Justice Kennedy would join the pro-2A side on any future gun control cases, and I believe this is why so many cases that seem ripe for the SCOTUS have been denied cert -- neither side wants to risk rocking the boat. If Kennedy will retire and Trump gets to name another "originalist," "strict constructionist" justice, there's a chance we may see more pro-2A action at the SCOTUS level.
Of course, Roberts is a snake in the grass, so even better would be if Ruth Bader-Ginsberg would also retire, but because of her hatred for Trump and the 2A (and the Constitution in general), that's not likely to happen. It could be argued that all references to Blackstone should be ignored. Blackstone was English, and the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) was written to correct certain things our forefathers found wrong or lacking under English law. |
May 13, 2018, 10:01 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
May 14, 2018, 08:45 AM | #6 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Another month having passed, we might as well have the conversation again.
Quote:
Quote:
That isn't what the article indicates. The reasoning in Kronstadt's order contains a severity of burden test not found in Heller and was a decision about open carry, a matter not addressed by Heller, but set forth in Jackson and Sylvester. Staton uses a plain rational basis test which is found nowhere in Heller, but is presented in the plaintiff's argument. Rather than indicating that these cases use rationales found in Heller, the article indicates: Quote:
Aguila Blanca aptly indicates the reasons for the current weak hand held by that view in the Sup Ct.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; May 15, 2018 at 08:40 AM. Reason: Just realized that italics in a quote aren't a good method for emphasis. |
|||
May 14, 2018, 06:24 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Last edited by thallub; May 14, 2018 at 06:31 PM. |
|
May 14, 2018, 08:18 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
|
I am a California resident and too make matters worse, the supra liberal 9th Circuit might be tames somewhat were vacancies on that court filled by Trump appointees, but getting them nominated and confirmed is easier said than done.
|
May 14, 2018, 08:40 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
|
|
May 15, 2018, 09:32 AM | #10 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
If you'd like an additional anxiety, imagine what happens if Thomas dies in his sleep tonight, and DJT decides that he has discharged his promise to the Federalists with Gorsuch. Maybe Thomas doesn't go tonight, but after a midterm election that has the exec deciding to work with Sen. Feinstein in choosing the next nominee. Maybe RBG takes her vitamins and sits for another twenty years. As Mao probably never actually said, "It's always darkest before it's totally black". Quote:
The Heller decision has limits inherent in the question it presents. Heller argued for a permit to keep a pistol in his home in an assembled condition. That fact pattern is so benign that it may have been pivotal in getting the Court to five to affirm the individual right. The Heller argument was the thin end of a wedge. This means that the Heller decision itself wasn't going to invalidate state restrictions on magazines, which rifle you could use to hunt deer, or whether the federal government could enforce regulations about fully automatic rifles. Even to have the individual right holding applied to states required McDonald. That isn't an error in the Heller decision; it's how precedent is supposed to work. There is no doubt that judges have political motives, just as writers and staff here may have political motives. In the realm of constitutional issues, part of that political motive involves the degree to which constitutional text is given deference. Some judges genuinely believe that constitutional text should yield to current social values they assess as superior when that constitutional text reads as an impediment. If you read the dissent in Citizens United, you will get Stevens' analysis of whether banning some kinds of speech is a good idea. Is a good idea therefore constitutional, or is the government power limited by the text of the Constitution? Stevens and Thomas hold different views arising from their approaches when answering that question.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; May 15, 2018 at 10:31 AM. |
|||
May 15, 2018, 02:32 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please do not speculate this possibility, even in jest, for the off chance of jinxing us and it actually happens!
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; May 15, 2018 at 02:38 PM. |
||
May 15, 2018, 02:50 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,449
|
Quote:
We can expect more disappointing lower court decisions until the population of the Court improves. Kagan and Sotomayor are both rather young.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 16, 2018, 10:53 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
The only thing worse than applying the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution to the states is to do so selectively.
|
May 17, 2018, 02:43 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
|
Federal judges-and SC justices-are a very undisciplined group, basically as long as you don't get caught taking bribes and aren't too obnoxious to those who appear in court you can do as you please. All this talk about being bound by "precedent" is so much hype, the SCOTUS reverses previous decisions all the time, and it is not unusual to find lower court judges with reversal rates of 50% or more.
|
May 18, 2018, 04:16 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
As in all laws and decisions it's up to the interpretation . I think the SCOTUS has dropped the ball on this one to include Scalia a bit . When Scalia wrote the 2nd does not allow you to carry what ever you want when ever you want and it's not unlimited . I "interpreted" that as him making sure the Heller case did not undo "ALL" gun laws before it like the NFA .
I believe that was the only reason that wording was in there . Think about it , If they had not put at least some wording in there that allowed "some" restriction the 2nd would be truly unlimited . Now I'm about to go extreme example but hopefully the point will out weigh the extremeness . Where would the unlimitedness stop . Well the word it self would indicate it would not end . I really don't want my neighbor building a fusion bomb in there basement for self defense . OK to much for even the most reasonable , how about the MOAB ? Can we all have some of those in the garage ? I believe the only reason it's questionable for anyone owning and or having the ability to deploy those types of weapons is the indiscriminate nature of said weapons . We Joe Blow just don't have enough information at are finger tips to deploy such weapons responsibly in most cases . There are rich enough people and or groups that could build just about anything if it were legal . I believe it's "THAT" type of restrictions the Heller wording was trying not to undo . Why do I believe this ? Because of the other wording we all thought we loved . "in common use" Why would you say it's not unlimited and at the same time basically say leave the items in common use alone ? "Maybe" Scalia could have done a better job pointing that out . Unfortunately "it's not unlimited" can be interpreted to mean we can keep restricting until the cows come home . This is where I think the SCOTUS has dropped the ball by letting the lower courts completely neuter the Heller decision . Anyways that's my take on it . Until the SCOTUS steps up and upholds it's own decisions there's not much to be hopeful for when come to the 2nd which ultimately will cause the rest to erode as well . I'm a strong believer that with out the 2nd , it will be hard to keep the rest over time .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; May 18, 2018 at 08:08 PM. |
May 29, 2018, 02:54 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
And the DC betting odds right now on Kennedy staying one more are 2:1 |
|
May 29, 2018, 02:59 PM | #17 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
^^^
All the more reason why we all need to hold our noses and vote in the mid-terms for whomever will back Trump on his nominations. I generally don't consider myself to be a single-issue voter but, in the final analysis, many of the issues I care about are fundamentally constitutional issues, so getting more "originalist," "strict constructionist" justices on the SCOTUS largely addresses all my hot button issues. |
May 29, 2018, 05:20 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
what we need to consider is the issue doesn't even matter to the foundations, politically individuals and Democratic party as much as it as its utility.
the Publix "die in" is nothing compared to shakedowns, modeled on the successful aspects of Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, of lots of companies who are threatened and then We even see a new concerted effort to identify celebrities who are gun owners (Vic Mensa, Mathew McConaughey are likely cases) threaten them with being backlisted unless they step up to support "reasonable" bans. another the big enchilada is the increasing foundation footprint on this issue. Take a listen to Rob Reich's excellent talk on how there is a huge increase in foundation money into US public policy/politics: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/podca...ten-democracy/ Quote:
Dark money: 527s, foundation money, c3 money, highly paid c3 and c4 and for profit employees sequencing through temporary leave of absences or "grants" to "'volunteer "to work on poltical campaigns. We even have NPR stations running grants programs for reporters from the gun control lobby. In scope and transparency citizens united is nothing. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|