HR-1808 AW ban

[Metal god]

It passed the house :-@ ! 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 ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

It passed the house :-@ ! 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.

[44 AMP]

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....

[Doc Intrepid]

And the chances of it passing in the Senate are slim.



But...who knows what will occur during the next 45 day recess?

[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 .

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

[Metal god]

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

[Spats McGee]

The antigunners in Congress know that even if HR1808 is eventually held unconstitutional, it stands until someone gets it to SCOTUS.

[Sharkbite]

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.

[OPC]

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.

[Metal god]

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 .

[Tom Servo]

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:

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.

[Doc Intrepid]

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.

[Metal god]

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 .

[Tom Servo]

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.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

[44 AMP]

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...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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.

[Metal god]

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 ?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Metal god

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.