|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Federal Judge Destroys DOJ in Opinion on Bump stocks. (Lane v US)
If you read any opinion I link to read this. Its a takings opinion from Texas on the bump stock ban. It denied the government's motion to dismiss. Here is a highlight.
"Perhaps there is one more place, where the collective will and knowledge of the people is expressed, that might indicate if the federal government has seized the police power from the states: the Constitution Wikipedia.49 But strangely, even Wikipedia has overruled neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court:"
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.” ― Plato |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG. Buy or sell a home. Property management including vacation rentals. We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG. Serving the greater San Diego area. Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640 CA Broker |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I don't know. This denial is without prejudice. The federal government can refile its motion to dismiss. And the only real issue here is whether or not the federal government will have to compensate bump stock owners for effectively taking their bump stocks.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Since posting, I found the time to fully read the opinion. The Government argued it had the police power to regulate these devices in the public interest and without paying compensation--but the judge found that the constitution does not give the Feds police powers. The "second bite" was to allow the Feds to find some other basis in the Constitution that allowed the Feds to "take" without compensation. He hinted, however, that if the feds assert commerce clause power, the feds were going to be buying a lot of bump stocks. Last edited by TruOil; 03-31-2020 at 8:55 PM.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Written by: Brantley David Starr (born 1979)[1] is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Trump... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brantley_Starr Noble |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
KEEP EM COMING DONALD |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
2020 Lane v. United States: bump stock
https://reason.com/2020/03/31/distri...-police-power/
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Reiterate; this is why I will not hesitate to vote for Trump in November.
__________________
Quote:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Just reading the Reason.com snippet, you don't mean Dianne Feinstein could have been sorta/kinda correct about something? Say it ain't so...
December 2018 - Feinstein Statement on Regulation to Ban Bump Stocks Quote:
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I completely missed the Futurama reference... thanks for pointing that out!
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IANAL and I've never even visited a law school. I'll still inflict a few thoughts on people - and will appreciate any corrections.
First, it was a fun read. Just dripping with sarcasm and disdain for the government's argument. I'd note that this judgment is not about whether bump stocks must be legal, it is about the federal government taking personal property without compensation. I'm curious about dismissing the motion without prejudice. I think the judge is saving pain and costs by effectively welcoming the government to re-enter the motion but to do it with reasonable grounds for doing so. I wonder if dismissal with prejudice might mean an appeal and a bunch of folderol which this avoids. Frankly, after such a scathing judgment I doubt the Feds are going to try a re-do of the motion invoking their non-existent police powers. So I suspect he killed the motion more effectively by dismissing without prejudice. But I don't know the relevant procedures so I could be very wrong.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Pretty please? It has been argued that the CC applies to wheat, and that has been a problem for decades. Recently we found that the CC does not apply to raisins... at least in the same way it applies to wheat. Since the 2nd was added to the Constitution after the Commerce Clause, it will be fascinating to see read the arguments telling us how the superseding law that is the 2nd does not apply. Read what Roberts wrote in the 2013 Obamacare ruling and the more recent emanations about limits to the penumbras of the CC. No way, no how do the emanations nor the penumbras of the CC reach forward through time, through the 2nd to today. This is the real game that is afoot: the rest of it is a sideshow. There is zero chance that big government wants to argue this point: it is a logically impossible loser. Read carefully the testimony in the Congressional Record on NFA '34. The NFA scheme is a tax on commerce: otherwise it is prohibited by the 2nd. It is right there in the Congressional Record. Read Roberts in the 2013 ruling: there must be voluntary commerce in order for there to be a tax. Is there today voluntary commerce in the items that require a NFA tax? It seems there was a blocker put in place in 1986. If there is no commerce, there cannot be a tax, so the NFA '34 is, at best, tenuous. This is exactly why FeinWhine demanded that the Congress pass and the President sign law. Legislation separate and overlapping with NFA would still be in place the day the NFA is struck down. She is evil, but not stupid.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state? |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA." Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
It's a pretty good smackdown but somewhere in the middle I started wondering about the general welfare clause in Art 1, Sec 8. Though of course if the welfare clause were applicable, that would mean that the Gov would have to compensate for the taking that they are trying to get around.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Strictly speaking as a tax payer, it seems we should have compensated people for confiscated property, for no other reason then to avoid these court costs. We will probably pay out in the end anyway. Why?
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Wow this is great ! We threw the democrats and media sycophants who worship at the alter of gun restrictions a useless item after Las Vegas.
Now a court who has men who know what they are about, takes the bone away ! Not tired of winning and Im trying to see how much I can contribute, to win back the house, keep the senate and of course re-elect the best President in my lifetime ! Lets keep promoting the NRA and other gun rights groups too ! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|