Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-08-2019, 12:26 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flogger23m View Post
Not true. Various semi auto rifles are used by many military forces around the world. Practically every country issues a semi auto only DMR/precision rifle. One example is the M110. Some countries even issue or used to issue semi auto rifles as standard issue for riflemen. The British did this up until the 90s with the L1A1.

Fairly irrelevant to the point though; military weapons are protected under the 2nd. But worth pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdsmith505 View Post
Thanks. It's important to note, though, that various AW bans focus on defensive rifles, and not sniper rifles and the like. The sentiment about military use of semi-auto is directed in-kind to the types of rifles consistent with the scope of the proposed bans and what may constitute an "assault weapon" at this time.

The antis haven't latched onto long-distance rifles as much, yet.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-12-2019, 5:10 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 205
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case is now on the Supreme Court's website:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....lic/19a11.html

The cert petition is due on September 23, 2019.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:26 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Glad it made it! I hope they get someone who can argue better than what happened at the Appeals. That oral was a trainwreck.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-13-2019, 3:41 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,349
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The case is to overturn the MA AW law entirely, not just the "series" prohibition, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-13-2019, 3:50 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Glad it made it! I hope they get someone who can argue better than what happened at the Appeals. That oral was a trainwreck.
Last thing we need is an incompetent lawyer in front of SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-13-2019, 4:04 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
The case is to overturn the MA AW law entirely, not just the "series" prohibition, correct?
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-13-2019, 5:40 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 730
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
It sounds exactly like the recent Rupp case in California. The judge found that the AR-15 was "Like" the M16, and the select fire difference was basically irrelevant. Since the Ar-15 was like the M16 it could be banned, per the judges logic.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-25-2019, 3:47 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 205
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Supreme Court case page

Cert petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...r%20I%20br.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-25-2019, 3:57 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I like counsel for the petitioners address . . . 1 Constitution Wharf.

At this point, I'll take about anything as a favorable sign.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-25-2019, 4:47 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 300
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Having someone that really knows the subject matter is important, but we all know the judges decision that "AR-15=M-16" would have happened regardless of how well or poorly the orals went.

The conservatives on SCOTUS know the difference, so this really isn't an issue in my mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
IIRC this was directed towards Maura's June 22 Op-Ed/Enforcement notice but it goes on to argue that the whole AWB thing is 2A-prohibited.

If you listen to the orals they basically end up with the "AR-15 = 'the like' = M16 = Machine gun". It was absolutely disastrous.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:17 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 642
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's the Court's docket on this case.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-20-2019, 5:15 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 205
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Brief of respondents Maura T. Healey, et al. in opposition

Reply of David Seth Worman, et al.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-03-2020, 9:11 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default DISTRIBUTED for Conference

Dec 23 2019 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-04-2020, 9:28 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How do any of these arguments superceed "shall not be infringed"???
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:45 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ô
Posts: 1,191
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
How do any of these arguments superceed "shall not be infringed"???
Short answer: there is a large disagreement on what "infringed" means when it comes to "reasonable restrictions" on a right enumerated in the constitution.

Familiarize yourself with "scrutiny"
https://legaldictionary.net/strict-scrutiny/
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:56 AM
flygrimm flygrimm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do all SC petitions go to conference and thatís where they either move on or die or is there something before conference? Just curious. We have been talking about this one for a while.

Thanks

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:25 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 730
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It seems like the assumption was that this was getting held per the NYSRPA case along with many other cases.

Now it's not held, and it's getting distributed. So that's may mean they're looking to take this as a replacement case.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:57 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Or, could be independent of NYSRPA, since this deals with “Arms,” not necessarily “Keep” or “Bear.” But, it may even be more mundane than that, relating to latency in enforcement of the law and whether and how much that is permissible.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-04-2020, 2:52 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This might be a good vehicle for "common use" but otherwise the case is pretty weird. A little summary from my memory:

1) MA adopted the federal AWB ban in the 90s with grandfathered AW and mags.
2) MA gun sellers basically removed adjustable stock, bayonet lug, and the threaded barrel (all flash hiders/compensates are pinned) and you have a MA compliant AR.
3) In 2016, AG said "Oh, btw all these MA-compliant rifles are actually AW but I won't prosecute you! "
4) MA dealers are confused and some just keep selling them.

Why I think it is weird is at first it seemed they wanted to argue the AG exceeded her authority with the notion that MA-compliant AWs = copies of AW that are banned. The status quo would be that her guidance was exceeding the intent of MA legislature. Instead, IIRC at the appeal, we got to "Well, the initial ban was unconstitutional so I guess the guidance is also irrelevant." In the appeals, IIRC, they have the two-step approach and some other like military-context consideration. In these last briefs, they basically sum it all up: "The approach taken is wrong, please address this." To me, it seems the "point" is a little muddled which might make SCOTUS feel uneasy.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-04-2020, 9:41 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

One other thought occurred to me: if SCOTUS is possibly trying to send a message to VA by taking Worman. Maybe not, but that could be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-05-2020, 7:01 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 730
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
One other thought occurred to me: if SCOTUS is possibly trying to send a message to VA by taking Worman. Maybe not, but that could be interesting.
That problem in VA is mainly due to SCOTUS inaction.. If they had decided an assault weapons ban case (either side winning) then the tensions would be calmer I think. It not just assault weapons tho, VA is planning more then that.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-05-2020, 8:09 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Agreed, and maybe they finally see the writing on the wall: that if they donít get off their rears and defend the constitution, it will cause a shooting war.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-05-2020, 8:10 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,723
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
One other thought occurred to me: if SCOTUS is possibly trying to send a message to VA by taking Worman. Maybe not, but that could be interesting.
SCOTUS would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that the vacuum of clear jurisprudence left in Heller's wake and the resulting lower court confusion is on the verge of leading to one level of government taking up arms in defending against another level. This is their job to fix and they know it... our scheme of ordered liberty has become vulnerable due to the divergent attitudes on what Heller does or doesn't allow.

I strongly suspect that regardless of how NYSRPA goes that Worman will be heard in the near future, and that tensions in VA will be eased, with both sides there withholding further escalation pending an outcome in Worman.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-08-2020, 3:40 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
SCOTUS would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that the vacuum of clear jurisprudence left in Heller's wake and the resulting lower court confusion is on the verge of leading to one level of government taking up arms in defending against another level. This is their job to fix and they know it... our scheme of ordered liberty has become vulnerable due to the divergent attitudes on what Heller does or doesn't allow.

I strongly suspect that regardless of how NYSRPA goes that Worman will be heard in the near future, and that tensions in VA will be eased, with both sides there withholding further escalation pending an outcome in Worman.
There is no confusion from the lower courts. They cherry picked language in Heller to justify their rulings to ban semi automatics like the AR15 even though Heller explicitly states commonly owned weapons are protected. Lower courts have taken a calculated risk that SCOTUS won't do a damn thing. It still appears they've made the right gamble as SCOTUS appears likely to ***** out on even a slam dunk case like NYSRPA.

Last edited by kuug; 01-08-2020 at 8:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-08-2020, 2:16 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,222
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
There is no confusion from the lower courts. They cherry picked language in Heller to justify their rulings to ban semi automatics like the AR15 even though Heller explicitly states commonly owned weapons are protected. Lower courts have taken a calculated risk that SCOTUS won't do a damn thing. It still appears they've made the right gamble as SCOTUS appears likely to ***** out on even a slam dunk case like NYSRPA.
Doubt it, I think they're just going to dial back the scope to a narrowly tailored decision - property rights and transport - worded in a such as way to prevent use as a linchpin for a carry case.

That would also allow moving forward on some other cases that otherwise would have continued to be held awaiting a larger scope decision.

I definitely like to see some action on this Worman case...

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-08-2020, 2:42 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Doubt it, I think they're just going to dial back the scope to a narrowly tailored decision - property rights and transport - worded in a such as way to prevent use as a linchpin for a carry case.

That would also allow moving forward on some other cases that otherwise would have continued to be held awaiting a larger scope decision.

I definitely like to see some action on this Worman case...

=8-)
And I would still count a narrowly tailored decision as *****ing out. The blatant disrespect the appeals courts have shown the 2nd amendment must be addressed in full with a wide ranging decision. They shouldn't be allowed to limit the carry of weapons outside the home to intermediate scrutiny. Just as they shouldn't be allowed to duck the Heller decision on AR15s, again treated with intermediate scrutiny based on an incredibly vague and statistically false public safety claim. How an appeals court, whose judges are still active aI might add, rubberstamp licensing that limits where you can even use your gun is beyond preposterous. Roberts has shown he is more than ok with all of this. There should have been zero questions from the conservative justices about whether the case was moot or not. We all know damn well that NY had years to change their policy and they didn't until it came up for SCOTUS review. Roberts is more than ok with not only New York democrats showing his institution disrespect by evading review and trying to weasel out of the case, but also the senate democrats with their open threats.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-08-2020, 5:50 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,222
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
And I would still count a narrowly tailored decision as *****ing out. The blatant disrespect the appeals courts have shown the 2nd amendment must be addressed in full with a wide ranging decision. They shouldn't be allowed to limit the carry of weapons outside the home to intermediate scrutiny. Just as they shouldn't be allowed to duck the Heller decision on AR15s, again treated with intermediate scrutiny based on an incredibly vague and statistically false public safety claim. How an appeals court, whose judges are still active aI might add, rubberstamp licensing that limits where you can even use your gun is beyond preposterous. Roberts has shown he is more than ok with all of this. There should have been zero questions from the conservative justices about whether the case was moot or not. We all know damn well that NY had years to change their policy and they didn't until it came up for SCOTUS review. Roberts is more than ok with not only New York democrats showing his institution disrespect by evading review and trying to weasel out of the case, but also the senate democrats with their open threats.
Not chickening out if the purpose of narrowly tailoring a decision is to prevent a party from attempting to force SCOTUS to reverse elsewhere such as "States may regulate CCW and prohibitions on CCW may be upheld." (Heller v DC, 2008)

Kagan flushed Mr. Clement out in the open on this during the NYSRPA v NYC orals - making it clear that the parties to NYSRPA are looking at their case as a vehicle for a carry decision - instead of simply what is in the briefs as a property and transport case.

For that reason, I see SCOTUS dialing back how far they will go on NYSRPA v NYC - and again, that frees up other cases to move forward instead of being held up further.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-10-2020, 4:22 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Worman was discussed at today's conference but not granted cert. 3 other cases were granted cert but they are not 2A related. Further orders from today's conference will be announced on Monday. It is likely the case will be stayed, or scheduled for the next conference.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-13-2020, 5:25 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 730
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Shouldn't it have been redistributed today, if SCOTUS wanted to look further? I think it might have gone into the zombie state like the others.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-13-2020, 6:20 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Shouldn't it have been redistributed today, if SCOTUS wanted to look further? I think it might have gone into the zombie state like the others.
It's been stayed. It will join the rest of them. That's good news for NYSRPA, it indicates that they feel no need to grant cert to another case to set the new standard for 2nd amendment cases.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-13-2020, 7:45 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 730
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It also means they plan something for this case. If they didn't they would have just denied.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-13-2020, 8:55 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It also means they plan something for this case. If they didn't they would have just denied.
Could be as simple as remanding it back to the appeals court based on a newly established standard of review, or they are saving it for next term as a nationwide case. Only time will tell, we'll be awaiting for the NYSRPA results before this case goes anywhere
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-14-2020, 5:19 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It also means they plan something for this case. If they didn't they would have just denied.
I'd bet on remand pending NYSRPA. SCOTUS is simply holding all 2A cases worth a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:37 AM
Jarrod Jarrod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 368
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
↑ This insight cannot be ignored. With regard to number of shots fired, the average number needed to incapacitate an assailant is 16.8, as shown by the grossly inaccurate shooting of law enforcement against questionable threats: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...ved-shootings/
Please forgive my ignorance, but where in your referenced links does it show the average number of shots needed to incapacitate an assailant is 16.8?
__________________
NRA member, SAF member, CalGuns contributor
NRA Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:56 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,222
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarrod View Post
Please forgive my ignorance, but where in your referenced links does it show the average number of shots needed to incapacitate an assailant is 16.8?
Well, there's always a starting point for that average before sudden fluctuation kicks in with the addition of additional data points:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-9-sh...police-gunfire

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-20-2020, 1:48 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 735
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think what he means is average number of shots fired, not necessarily hits made, by police officers in order to stop an assailant. The police officers aspect is important, as in this day and age officers seem to have a habit of shooting their guns to slide lock. So if you have one officer emptying his 17 round mag in his Glock, and one assailant stopped, the average shoots way up.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -8. The time now is 8:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical