|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
||||
|
||||
Really, I just meant that saying the Supreme Court screwed up is not a good argument for a lawyer to make.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#162
|
||||
|
||||
Which is exactly why travesties like Cruikshank will NEVER be reversed. The level of arrogance and self proclaimed infallibility displayed by judges (and the court system as a whole) always rankles.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#163
|
||||
|
||||
You're bloviating again. You challenged me twice, here:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes or no.
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-07-2013 at 8:18 PM.. |
#164
|
||||
|
||||
In the context of gun laws, yes, that is the approach being endorsed by the dissent.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#165
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The answer must be that the question of whether "in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence" is part of the intermediate scrutiny ("interest-balancing inquiry") standard that SCOTUS has rejected. Sorry to interject.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#166
|
||||
|
||||
I'm going to ask it again, in Heller (and "in the context of gun laws" if it makes you feel better to include that) the dissent endorses one and only one approach (the interest balancing approach), that asks one and only one question ("the only question being...), right?
__________________
|
#167
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#168
|
||||
|
||||
This is your "[Hmmm, which standard of scrutiny do those case apply?]" right? Is this a good time to take a look at those cases in the passage you quoted right before "[Hmmm..." which you claim apply "intermediate scrutiny"?
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-07-2013 at 8:40 PM.. |
#169
|
||||
|
||||
Not only does the Heller dissent endorse the "interest-balancing inquiry," in the dissenting opinion he applies it to the DC laws in question, right?
__________________
|
#170
|
||||
|
||||
I presume so, seeing how it seems pointless to argue in favor of an approach to evaluating a law and then not actually apply it to the law.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#172
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#173
|
||||
|
||||
We're going to make a very brief trip back to elementary school. Would you agree that a paragraph's topic sentence usually announces the subject of the rest of the paragraph?
__________________
|
#174
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#175
|
||||
|
||||
If a paragraph began with this topic sentence:
Quote:
__________________
|
#176
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#177
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-07-2013 at 9:21 PM.. |
#178
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#179
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
That makes sense of course, since the objectives of the First Amendment are partially served in the absence of discrimination. Where there is discrimination however, the Court will not look then to the State's purportedly important regulatory interests. They will instead apply strict scrutiny. But the discrimination factor has no analog here. Instead the Heller majority has given us other factors by which to determine if the statute should be subject to scrutiny under 2A. Namely, "sensitive place" exceptions, "typical lawful use" and "dangerous and unusual". Those replace "discrimination" in 2A analysis. But in any case, this issue of what part of the dissent was rejected is just one of the reasons I think the court has made it clear that strict scrutiny applies. Allow me to ask you a few questions. Which standard of scrutiny has the Supreme Court held should be applied to a "fundamental right protected by the Constitution?" (Hint: Perry Educ. ***’n v. Perry Local Educators’ ***’n, 460 U.S. 37, 54 (1983).) And has the Supreme Court held that right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution is one of the "fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty?” (Hint: McDonald, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3042.) Has the Supreme Court held that there is no reason why the “Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment?” (Hint: McDonald, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3043.) See, I even gave you hints.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. Last edited by Tincon; 11-07-2013 at 9:22 PM.. |
#180
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Keep in mind that judges will remain friendly to the feeling of exclusivity of may-issue licensed concealed carry because as members of the judiciary (a more equal class) they are given special treatment. Not only would no sheriff dare turn down a judge or even a retired judge's application, but the legislature has granted them longer terms between license renewal in recognition of their more equal status. It's going to be next to impossible to get a judge to rule that "all animals are equal - period" when it reduces them to being no better and no more privileged than we peasants. Their egos won't allow that.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 11-07-2013 at 9:32 PM.. |
#181
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#182
|
||||
|
||||
Those cases are actually in the same paragraph I'm discussing with kcbrown, aren't they?
__________________
|
#183
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. Last edited by Tincon; 11-07-2013 at 9:33 PM.. |
#184
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#185
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#186
|
||||
|
||||
Yes.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#187
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#188
|
||||
|
||||
This sentence:
Quote:
Then he begins an argument about how scrutiny should be skipped unless "the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Sometimes the first sentence of a paragraph is what I was taught in school is called a "transition". Particularly when it comes in the middle of a section of paragraphs where the first one explains what the "topic" of the section is...
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#189
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#190
|
||||
|
||||
Hey I answered your question, will you answer mine (I can wait 'till later, just want to know if I can look forward to that).
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#192
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, in at least some cases. Otherwise you get, "it depends". It was certainly the case in Burdick , which was cited in your favorite paragraph in the dissent.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#193
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, I will.
__________________
|
#194
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
How about: is it your position that the determination whether "the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests" is just a "preliminary matter" that precedes the application of scrutiny in 2A cases such as DC v Heller?
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-07-2013 at 10:13 PM.. |
#195
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
(Hint: last paragraph, first sentence.) ETA: Link to Heller opinion here.
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-07-2013 at 10:07 PM.. |
#196
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Here: Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#197
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#198
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#199
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#200
|
||||
|
||||
Earlier you disagreed with me that the dissent's "interest balancing inquiry" and the "proportionality approach" were the same thing. Are you sticking to that position?
__________________
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|