|
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 |
July 9, 2018, 08:20 PM | #101 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
It will be interesting to see how the next cert vote on an AWB goes. We’ll know real quick who the holdout was on the Heller majority.
|
July 9, 2018, 08:48 PM | #102 | |
Member
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 31
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2018, 09:06 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
In any event, it'll be interesting to see. Roberts may well assume Kennedy's role as the reluctant 2nd Amendment supporter.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
July 9, 2018, 09:11 PM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
It will be entertaining to see how that 'snake', (the one who's head is trapped) writhes, twists, and curls during the coming confirmation process.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
July 9, 2018, 09:20 PM | #105 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Posted within a minute of each other, so it was only natural to merge the threads.
|
July 9, 2018, 09:26 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,742
|
I was hoping for Hardiman because like he has stated I am of the opinion the lifetime bans on firearms ownership for non violent people are unconstitutional. No other right is denied to people with former convictions for the rest of their life if they become respectable citizens. How many people are denied the right to own a gun due to one incidence of "domestic violence" where no gun was used but maybe a dish was thrown in the heat of the moment or someone got slapped with no lasting injury but the cops were called. It takes very little in some states for a conviction. How many cops lost their jobs over Clinton's domestic violence law which was applied retroactively to disarm a large number of people who for the most part have had uneventful and peaceful lives? I do think Kavanaugh will be a solid supporter of 2A rights given what I have read. Maybe just not as far right as Hardiman would have been. Time is almost ripe for the California "safe handgun" and "assault weapons bans" to be challenged in front of a conservative court as unconstitutional restrictions on private ownership of firearms.
|
July 9, 2018, 09:42 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Well I am thrilled as a gun owner. Not so much as a cell phone, internet, electronic device user.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
July 10, 2018, 12:18 AM | #108 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
I'm not sure, but I think I would have preferred Kethledge.
|
July 10, 2018, 08:16 AM | #109 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
It might be that they believe the states should be given more time to experiment with different approaches before the court steps in. It might be they knew there wasn’t five votes for their preferred approach and so they didn’t vote to grant cert. It might be they just didn’t think it was the best set of facts to build on. Even when we narrow down the who, I don’t think the why is so clear. We know at least one of the Justices (Alito) arguing against cert wrote a lower court dissent arguing Congress had no authority to ban machineguns if they had no connection to interstate commerce. So, it seems unlikely he was arguing against cert because he thought AWBs were constitutional and the lower court correctly decided. Why Roberts and Kennedy voted against cert is less clear. If Kavanaugh is confirmed (which seems likely), that’s 3 Justices who have implied or outright stated that AWBs are unconstitutional under the Second. If Alito and Roberts share that view, we should know soon enough. |
|
July 10, 2018, 08:20 AM | #110 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
A good case to eliminate state bans on weapons type should be a priority. If Roberts and Alito don't go along with a strong decision without weasel words, they should be seen for what they are on the issues.
Just saw this analysis of K. https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09...cond-amendment A conclusion from the article: Quote:
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
July 10, 2018, 10:42 AM | #111 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Right here is where I depart from his logic. From the link Glenn provided:
Quote:
Quote:
McDonald wasn't about expanding the scope of Heller with regard to the meaning of the Second Amendment. McDonald was about whether or not Heller and the Second Amendment applied anywhere outside of Washington, DC. I'm not happy about Kavanaugh. I still think I would have preferred Kethledge. |
||
July 11, 2018, 12:14 PM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
A basic rule in evaluating the constitutionality of a statute or other enacted law is that it is presumed to be constitutional. The burden is on the challenging party to show otherwise. How high that burden should be is where we start talking about strict scrutiny, rational basis, and points in-between. So, saying existing laws are presumptively constitutional really doesn't mean anything, IMO.
|
July 11, 2018, 04:07 PM | #113 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
I mean, slavery was legal from pre-constitution until nearly 100 years after it's signing. Should there have been some sort of deference to "long-standing regulations"? Any number of issues could be substituted there. Woman's or other minority suffrage, for example? Just because it's been illegal, or legal, for a long time, lends no credence to it's moral, ethical or constitutional validity. Further, it actually seems to create an avenue of bypass and/or circular reasoning in some obvious ways. First, the NFA and the 1986 machine gun ban. They're certainly "long-standing". So, machine guns can be banned, because they've been banned for a long time and they're not "in common use".... but they're only not in common use because they've been banned for a long time. A person or organization so inclined could monitor technological or patent developments and pass bans on items not even fully created yet, intending to keep them out of "common use" and keep them illegal long enough to qualify as "long-standing". Slightly tongue in cheek, but illustrative... pass a ban on "phasers" today.... by the time they're invented in 100 years, the ban is constitutional because it's "long-standing".
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 11, 2018, 05:20 PM | #114 | ||
Member
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 31
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|