The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 29, 2022, 06:48 PM   #26
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
It passed the house :[email protected] ! I’m confused aren’t we pretty sure an AW ban and mag limits are unconstitutional based on Bruin ? Is it different if the Federal government passes the unconstitutional law ?

If passed will someone need to be harmed ( have “standing” ) to sue ? I can’t help but think when we are talking unconstitutional, every citizen has standing the second it passes ?
__________________
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 .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 29, 2022, 07:25 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
It passed the house :[email protected] ! I’m confused aren’t we pretty sure an AW ban and mag limits are unconstitutional based on Bruin ? Is it different if the Federal government passes the unconstitutional law ?
Are you referring to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen? That case wasn't about assault weapons, it was about "may issue" carry permits.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 29, 2022, 08:56 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Passing in the House by 4 votes means very little, really.

Also note that it was the last thing passed before the House went on a 45 day recess....

They probably think most people will have forgotten about it by the time they get back...but some of us, won't....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 29, 2022, 09:14 PM   #29
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,033
And the chances of it passing in the Senate are slim.



But...who knows what will occur during the next 45 day recess?
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old July 29, 2022, 10:09 PM   #30
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
AB - the SCOTUS then granted cert to an AW ban case and mag limit restriction case . Vacated them both and sent them back to be considered with there new guide lines . So yes Im talking about the Bruen case to include the newly vacated cases which where vary similar to parts of HR-1808 .
__________________
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 .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 29, 2022, 10:12 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
AB - the SCOTUS then granted cert to an AW ban case and mag limit restriction case . Vacated them both and sent them back to be considered with there new guide lines . So yes Im talking about the Bruen case to include the newly vacated cases which where vary similar to parts of HR-1808 .
You can't "include" other cases with NYSRPA v Bruen. Each case is a distinct case. By attempting to lump them all together, you are just creating confusion.

What are the names of the other cases to which you refer?

Sending those two cases back for reconsideration isn't exactly the same as finding them unconstitutional. It was universally understood that those cases were on hold until the SCOTUS had decided the NYSRPA case. In sending those other cases back, the SCOTUS didn't decide anything. They just told the respective lower courts to reconsider according to the new clarity regarding level of scrutiny that was provided by NYSRPA. Basically, the SCOTUS gave the respective lower courts a Mulligan.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 02:51 AM   #32
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Link below
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) vacated and remanded a number of cases centered on an “assault weapons” ban in Maryland, a “high capacity” magazine ban in California, and carry restrictions in Hawaii.

Among the cases are Bianchi v. Frosh, challenging Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban; Young v. Hawaii, which deals with carry restrictions in Hawaii; and Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s “high capacity” mag ban."
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=615065
__________________
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 .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 10:34 AM   #33
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 10:49 AM   #34
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Are you referring to New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen? That case wasn't about assault weapons, it was about "may issue" carry permits.
While thats true, Justice Thomas defined what test should be used in future cases regarding 2A issues. Paraphrasing… The text of the amendment considering history and tradition at the time of its ratification.

So, it could definitely impact AWB laws. There has already been a Judge in Colorado that issued an injunction to an AWB/Mag ban based on Bruen.

The 3 cases mentioned above, were sent back to the lower courts BECAUSE the lower courts didnt use that test when they upheld those cases. All of those cases used a 2 step test. The second part of those tests was the “needs of society”. Thats OUT now.

What does the 2nd amendment SAY and what did the founders intend it to protect. That is easy to examine though the letters and correspondence between the founders.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 11:32 AM   #35
OPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 170
Quote:
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
Maybe. It depends on who sits on the bench at that time. SCOTUS has proven itself a political creature - if ever it wasn’t. Overturning Roe tells the anti-gunners precedent is only as meaningful as who sits on the bench.

I think it matters that these bills be voted down in Congress. Can not rely on a SCOTUS whose members are not immortal and that is largely insulated from the consequences of their actions.

Edit: The House did pass the bill.
__________________
José
OPC is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 12:11 PM   #36
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
I agree We don’t wanna count on the Supreme Court . However the supreme court after Bruen granted cert for those three other cases ( AW ban , carry case and mag restriction case ) and vacated them then sent them back down for reconsideration under their new guidelines . That seemed like a much bigger step of enforcing their ruling then I believe ever happened after McDonald or Heller . It seems at least as the court sits now they are ready to enforce/defend as much as they legally can their Bruen decision .
__________________
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 .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 06:11 PM   #37
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.
They've also built a big severability clause into it:

Quote:
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal, and that costs time and money. They can wear us down through attrition.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 06:16 PM   #38
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,033
November elections are only 90 days from now.

The House has just gone on a 45 day recess. About half that period.

The Senate is under no obligation to bring the matter to the floor prior to the elections.

The matter may not be taken up until after the mid-terms, which could result in a very different environment thereafter.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old July 30, 2022, 07:23 PM   #39
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
I'd like to assume this never had/s a chance of passing the senate . My expectations are that this was for politics only . The house members that voted for it can now say . We did what we could BUT the senate pro NRA gun lovers refused to act because they hate children lol . OK maybe not exactly that but you get the point . This was for the mid terms IMHO . How it works out for them who knows .
__________________
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 .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 31, 2022, 04:51 AM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,999
Quote:
OK maybe not exactly that but you get the point
Actually, I expect a few Representatives to say exactly that. They've been passing these sorts of bills in the House as symbolic (and knowingly futile) gestures for the last few months. They're hoping it makes them look more palatable in the midterms. The timing of this is intentional.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 31, 2022, 08:21 AM   #41
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
They've also built a big severability clause into it:



It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal, and that costs time and money. They can wear us down through attrition.
You nailed it, Tom. And any smart drafter puts in a severability clause.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 31, 2022, 09:19 PM   #42
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Quote:
It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal,
OR the court rules on more than one specific section of the law when it comes before it...

It has not been their habit, of late, but I believe it is still within their authority to do so...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 1, 2022, 07:36 AM   #43
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
OR the court rules on more than one specific section of the law when it comes before it...

It has not been their habit, of late, but I believe it is still within their authority to do so...
It is possible that a court will do that, but as a general rule, courts rule on the question before them but go no broader.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old August 1, 2022, 10:56 AM   #44
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,512
Is that likely why they threw everything in this bill . There are so many individual bans it’s a bit staggering really ?

Also can one plaintiff just sue for every single individual thing in the bill arguing on each part . Then when the district court throws out 90% of the plaintiffs claims for standing or what ever the reasons may be . Would that allow the plaintiffs to bring up everything on appeal ?
__________________
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; August 1, 2022 at 12:59 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old August 2, 2022, 07:04 AM   #45
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
Is that likely why they threw everything in this bill . There are so many individual bans it’s a bit staggering really ?

Also can one plaintiff just sue for every single individual thing in the bill arguing on each part . Then when the district court throws out 90% of the plaintiffs claims for standing or what ever the reasons may be . Would that allow the plaintiffs to bring up everything on appeal ?
In theory, yes, one plaintiff could sue challenge the entire bill. That plaintiff, however, would have to show that he or she has standing as to each and every aspect of the bill. It's a tough row to hoe.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14813 seconds with 8 queries