We got 6 to 3 or 5 to 4 SCOTUS for 2ndAmend, so...

[Big Chudungus]

Why ain't I seeing anti-2nd Amend laws AND "Administrative rules" being thrown out wholesale?...under simple "shall not be infringed" doctrine.

Why not "solidly conservative" court doing same type of "social transformation" as SCOTUS did in prior decades on Left Wing issues, mostly without any Constitutional basis?

All I'm seeing is some tap dancing around the fringes on ccw, etc.

One of my theories is that judges hate ruling on actual law because that makes them basically just janitors following someone else's rules.... But when they make up their own laws out of thin air that is a exercise of real power.

But I'm not seeing any cases in the news that are arguing for for basic 2nd amendment rights such as negating the California roster, mags, gun lengths, full auto, "featureless", ammo sales etc.

[homelessdude]

Nobody knows what we have until they release some decisions on a few 2nd amendment cases. Until then its just people talking.

[Big Chudungus]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Nobody knows what we have until they release some decisions on a few 2nd amendment cases. Until then its just people talking.

Not a practicing Constitutional Law or 2nd lawyer, but seems to me the strategy once you get a friendly SCOTUS would be fill 2nd Amend appeals on broad and basic grounds and let them get denied by lower courts (still anti-2A, as well as just "correctly" going by prior SCOTUS and other higher ruling precedent) with the goal of having the new SCOTUS re-consider the issue.

Also, its OK to ask and get denied or ruled against repeatedly, like you are an idiot who "just don't get it". Pretty sure ALL big Left Wing favorable SCOTUS rulings were after decades of similar cases losing repeatedly. A "simple" case that makes big fundamental changes seems much more powerful that incremental.

[FreshTapCoke]

I had to check the date, isn't this kind of what's going on right now? There are a handful of cases pending at the circuit level waiting for the NYSRPA v Bruen case opinion to be released, and then multiple cases pending the outcome of those pending cases.

I'm a few bourbons in so I'm probably misunderstanding the question.


Litigation is expensive and time consuming so at some point, especially if they think they'll get extremely favorable precedent set by NYSRPA v Bruen, they might hold off and avoid going through multiple years of trial if the outcome of Bruen will allow them to fast track overturning those 2nd Amendment infringements.

[ShadowGuy]

Read this and all the linked cases:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...postcount=2258

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by ShadowGuy

Read this and all the linked cases:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...postcount=2258

BC said;

But I'm not seeing any cases in the news that are arguing for for basic 2nd amendment rights such as negating the California roster, mags, gun lengths, full auto, "featureless", ammo sales etc.

No sir, you don't see such cases on the Bias Stream Media unless they have made it through the gauntlet of lower courts. And are far enough along to threaten the Leftist Gun Grabbers.

Check the link ShadowGuy posted. Then consider, that is just current cases in Ca. These type Pro2A cases nationally, add up to dozens waiting in the wings or still being litigated in lower courts.

[homelessdude]

^^^^^^^^ We can hope. It's way past time the 2nd. gets some respect ^^^^^

[gwanghoops]

I'd be surprised if more anti-gun people don't start supporting outright repeal of 2A.

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by gwanghoops

I'd be surprised if more anti-gun people don't start supporting outright repeal of 2A.

That’s what they should’ve been doing decades ago, but then their strategy of boiling the frog wouldn’t have worked.

[Big Chudungus]

Originally Posted by FreshTapCoke

NYSRPA v Bruen case opinion to be released, and then multiple cases pending the outcome of those pending cases.

I'm a few bourbons in so I'm probably misunderstanding the question.


Litigation is expensive and time consuming so at some point, especially if they think they'll get extremely favorable precedent set by NYSRPA v Bruen, they might hold off and avoid going through multiple years of trial if the outcome of Bruen will allow them to fast track overturning those 2nd Amendment infringements.

Bruen case and fallout (if successful) is pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Seems to be about blanket denials for CCW APPLICATIONS. Shouldn't it be about making the whole concept of CCW APPLICATION (permission granting) unConstitutional? (maybe a very narrow carve out for certain CONVICTED felons with at least 3 judge sign off and must be reviewed every 5 yrs or something. What about ending blanket denials but just Slow Walking and/or losing applications, making CCW cert classes unworkable, etc?

Some (legit lawyer) guy on Alex Jones was saying its a Big American Myth (BAM) that when SCOTUS rules on a case its some nationwide edicts and/or it affects anything except the individuals in that case, and while lawyers can "argue precedent" and cite the case its only their opinion offered to some judge who (in theory) is supposed to sorta consider what would happen if their case goes to SCOTUS. Liberal rulings all seem to be taken as national edicts, while Conservative rulings only apply to individual case.

Where are the 2A versions of Forced Busing or Welfare for Illegals or Gay Marriage?

One of the cases in pacrat's list seems to say a court just ruled CA's laws against "assault weapons" is unConstitutional but aren't there quite a few people in real prison or at least real felony convictions still?

If someone started violating the 13th Amend (ending slavery) would it be a several years long process going through the courts to finally have SCOTUS saying "yeah, your aren't supposed to do that anymore" as only response?

How about considering any violation of 2A as an attack on "the militia" and thus attack on US Armed Forces and seditious, etc?

The LAPD in the Rodney King case were criminally convicted of violating his Civil Rights and their status as on duty uniformed cops didn't shield them and they went to prison. (not sure exactly which Fed Civil Right was invoked, I'm always hearing "oddly enough, murder is NOT a Fed Crime")

[MountainLion]

Originally Posted by Big Chudungus

Shouldn't it be about making the whole concept of CCW APPLICATION (permission granting) unConstitutional? (maybe a very narrow carve out for certain CONVICTED felons with at least 3 judge sign off and must be reviewed every 5 yrs or something.

You seem to be under the impression that the 2A is infringed (that's a pun, a quote from the 2A itself) if any form of licensing is required. You also seem to be under impression that the 2A doesn't allow prohibiting prohibiting all felons and the mentally ill. Well, on both counts you are wrong. Read Heller sometime, and while it deals with a particularly difficult licensing scheme (the city of Washington DC was making it impossible for Mr. Heller to get a 22 revolver), it didn't throw out the concept of a licensing scheme, it in a nutshell said that licensing must be available and can't be just shut down. It also said that "long-standing prohibitions" against felons and the mentally ill are not affected by the ruling.

What you need to understand is this. You think you know what the 2A means, and your interpretation seems to be "nearly all guns for nearly all people nearly all the time". But your interpretation and $5 gets me a coffee at Starbucks. We have a system in this country (and have had it for over 200 years) to determine what the constitution means. And that system is called "courts". The Supreme Court has said (for example in Heller) what "keep" means. It may tell use what "bear" means in the upcoming case. Since then, the courts have found that many restrictions remain constitutional under the interpretation of the 2A preferred by the courts.

One of the cases in pacrat's list seems to say a court just ruled CA's laws against "assault weapons" is unConstitutional ...

Really? That's news to me. Can you dig that out?

How about considering any violation of 2A as an attack on "the militia" and thus attack on US Armed Forces and seditious, etc?

You are free to consider that. The bulk of society does not, nor do the courts.

And be careful what you wish for. If you make the argument "the 2A applies to the militia" too much, you end up with the situation we had before Heller, which was (in a nutshell, overly simplified): the 2A only guarantees the right of members of the organized militia to keep and bear guns, those people who are not in the National Guard have no 2A rights.

(not sure exactly which Fed Civil Right was invoked, I'm always hearing "oddly enough, murder is NOT a Fed Crime")

That is false, and true.

The false part: Yes, there are federal murder statutes, starting with 18USC1111. There is a handful ways that a murder can be tried as a federal crime. I would guess that roughly half of all murders are in those categories, even though in most cases, they are handled by state courts.

The true part: In general, criminal law is left to the states, unless there is a federal nexus. The reason for that is the constitution, more specifically the 10th amendment, known colloquially as "states' rights". You should probably take a little refresher class in politics and law (at the level of a typical high school government class) if that isn't clear to you.

[FreshTapCoke]

Originally Posted by Big Chudungus

Bruen case and fallout (if successful) is pretty good example of what I'm talking about. Seems to be about blanket denials for CCW APPLICATIONS. Shouldn't it be about making the whole concept of CCW APPLICATION (permission granting) unConstitutional? (maybe a very narrow carve out for certain CONVICTED felons with at least 3 judge sign off and must be reviewed every 5 yrs or something. What about ending blanket denials but just Slow Walking and/or losing applications, making CCW cert classes unworkable, etc?

Some (legit lawyer) guy on Alex Jones was saying its a Big American Myth (BAM) that when SCOTUS rules on a case its some nationwide edicts and/or it affects anything except the individuals in that case, and while lawyers can "argue precedent" and cite the case its only their opinion offered to some judge who (in theory) is supposed to sorta consider what would happen if their case goes to SCOTUS. Liberal rulings all seem to be taken as national edicts, while Conservative rulings only apply to individual case.

I think I understand your point and I feel like that too. I bet a lot of it has to do with living in California, probably both of us in major metropolitan areas? If you flip it around, Roe v Wade is considered a Liberal ruling, and it laid out the red carpet for abortion in Liberal states, but even almost half a century later you had states passing laws that Liberals considered infringements on abortion.

Also, in terms of being able to ignore Supreme Court rulings, Chicago did just that after Heller. They continued to ignore the 2nd Amendment, but McDonald was able to fight them and get a handsome pay out.

The parallel for me is the Democrats and their resistance to the Brown v Board of Education ruling. I believe it took over a decade after Brown to eliminate segregation in schools.

Originally Posted by Big Chudungus

If someone started violating the 13th Amend (ending slavery) would it be a several years long process going through the courts to finally have SCOTUS saying "yeah, your aren't supposed to do that anymore" as only response?

If it was manacles and working a plantation, it would be pretty cut and dry and wouldn't take several long years. But if it were some kind of involuntary servitude that we can't imagine, it would take those years of litigation to resolve. In my (poor?) opinion taxes are a pretty clear example of involuntary servitude, but 1,000 generations will perish before a court would even entertain that notion.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

But when they make up their own laws out of thin air that is a exercise of real power.

In a real Constitutional Republic the Judiciary branch doesn't make laws. Of course in our current banana republic I suppose they do.

[pacrat]

Quote:
One of the cases in pacrat's list seems to say a court just ruled CA's laws against "assault weapons" is unConstitutional ...

Really? That's news to me. Can you dig that out?

News to me also. I did refer to a link that ShadowGuy posted.

Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
Read this and all the linked cases:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...postcount=2258

Perhaps BC is conflating the recent "Jones v Bonta" ruling. Which ruled that banning 18-20 yr olds from owning semi-auto rifles is unconstitutional. But Jones isn't on the list in that link.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by MountainLion

...The Supreme Court has said (for example in Heller) what "keep" means. It may tell use what "bear" means in the upcoming case. Since then, the courts have found that many restrictions remain constitutional under the interpretation of the 2A preferred by the courts...

That's it in a nutshell, though the phrase, I believe, is "Until then," not "Since then..."

Ultimately, it's going to be a grind and that seems to be the plan. SCOTUS is highly unlikely to implement anything but incrementally. The best we can hope for is "the premise" to be set, but the details will be contingent upon time/place/location.

[Big Chudungus]

Originally Posted by MountainLion

You seem to be under the impression that the 2A is infringed (that's a pun, a quote from the 2A itself) if any form of licensing is required. You also seem to be under impression that the 2A doesn't allow prohibiting prohibiting all felons and the mentally ill. Well, on both counts you are wrong. Read Heller sometime, and while it deals with a particularly difficult licensing scheme (the city of Washington DC was making it impossible for Mr. Heller to get a 22 revolver), it didn't throw out the concept of a licensing scheme, it in a nutshell said that licensing must be available and can't be just shut down. It also said that "long-standing prohibitions" against felons and the mentally ill are not affected by the ruling.

What you need to understand is this. You think you know what the 2A means, and your interpretation seems to be "nearly all guns for nearly all people nearly all the time". But your interpretation and $5 gets me a coffee at Starbucks. We have a system in this country (and have had it for over 200 years) to determine what the constitution means. And that system is called "courts". The Supreme Court has said (for example in Heller) what "keep" means. It may tell use what "bear" means in the upcoming case. Since then, the courts have found that many restrictions remain constitutional under the interpretation of the 2A preferred by the courts.


Really? That's news to me. Can you dig that out?


You are free to consider that. The bulk of society does not, nor do the courts.

And be careful what you wish for. If you make the argument "the 2A applies to the militia" too much, you end up with the situation we had before Heller, which was (in a nutshell, overly simplified): the 2A only guarantees the right of members of the organized militia to keep and bear guns, those people who are not in the National Guard have no 2A rights.


That is false, and true.

The false part: Yes, there are federal murder statutes, starting with 18USC1111. There is a handful ways that a murder can be tried as a federal crime. I would guess that roughly half of all murders are in those categories, even though in most cases, they are handled by state courts.

The true part: In general, criminal law is left to the states, unless there is a federal nexus. The reason for that is the constitution, more specifically the 10th amendment, known colloquially as "states' rights". You should probably take a little refresher class in politics and law (at the level of a typical high school government class) if that isn't clear to you.

Infringed means "like not even around the fringes", which is completely diff and infinitely stronger than "reasonable" or "as proscribed by law" or "except in time of war", etc. IMO that was put in because the Founding Fathers had known of fairly common practice where a war was started by 3rd party and they looked sorta equal and both sides thought they had a chance but one sides weapons had been "infringed" just enough to ensure that after taking big losses they would end up losing and be much worse off than before. To me the real question is how far "not infringed" could used to nullify seemingly unrelated laws like pollution laws...if the party in question was polluting in the course of bearing arms. Could my Lead Mine be exempt because of the 1,000tons a month I cast 100 bullets? Might have to pro-rate the pollution fines. But this is a real issue since anti-2A players are talking about nullifing 2A with back door targeted environmental regulations.

Its been a meme (not sure if factual) that in the old days when you got out of prison they gave you a new suit, $20, a horse (and saddle) and a gun. In a society not under attack by Social Engineers, there aren't enough bad felons or insane people to preclude from gun ownership. The really bad people will be hung and the truly crazy will be in the nut house. Likewise there shouldn't be an Govt permissions required to work in USA if things were run correctly. If some tourist from Germany wants to work in a bowling alley, gas station, mall or flip burgers for a couple weeks because he wants to LARP some Hollywood movie he saw he can go for it.

Its a Big American Myth (BAM) that "SCOTUS has the final word". Its actually 2 out of 3 branches as shown by POTUS Jackson VS SCOTUS on that famous Indian ruling he ignored. POTUS is empowered to ignore SCOTUS, but Congress can remove POTUS with super-duper majority. I hit my HS US History teacher with that fact when he was selling the Jackson/Indian meme and he was flabbergasted and whole class saw the logic and agreed with me and he had no real rebuttal and didn't hold it against me but as expected in that afternoon's session of exact same class he was back to pushing the establishment PC narrative. A POTUS who is pledged to "serve The People" shouldn't hesitate to risk Removal on an issue, especially now that POTUS and VPOTUS are of same "ticket". What we are seeing today is every POTUS will rather keep free dry cleaning and limo service rather than save countless lives and the entire USA, and they they are all plenty rich enough to pay for their own laundry and rides before becoming POTUS, and its disgusting.

Problem with courts is judges don't understand the concept of Law. 98% of judges and 99.99% of woman judges think their job is to micro-manage other people's lives like some Fairy Godmother and decide "what is best" for them. I'm sure if you did a Stanford Prison style experiment you'd find that nearly all people are similar and if empowered are constitutionally (pardon pun) incapable of minding their own damn business and standing by to let others "make their own mistakes". Judges are supposed be judges on legal matters only. Recent case about some road in Contra Costa Co and she is saying "....and this I've determined would be best for all parties...." Its not her role to determine what is best. Either a certain party has a legal right/authority to make a road somewhere or they don't, and if that is a bad move on their part or will cause others hardship that is not her businesses.

Its also a BAM that our form of Govt made USA so Great The First Time (GTFT). USA was GTFT because it was WASPs free to devolop on their own bordered by only Canada, Mexico, Pacific and Atlantic. My Biz Law professorette told the class what makes USA so much better and richer than rest of Western Hemi is USA has dual houses of Congress and (supposedly) Latin American govts have single body national assemblies. Some Oriental kid asks why they valued having a SBNA so much they would live in poverty for generations rather than adopt USA's framework.

According to current Poly Sci teachings, "the courts" have only been a factor after WW2 (and of course thats great), but others say USA has been in a social and cultural nose dive starting shortly after WW2 and that was never voted on and has mostly been "the courts".

Recently SCOTUS is tied with The Pope for being wrong about everything all the time, in that even when they are sorta on the right side they do so so weakly that they are actually granting approval of 90% bad behavior.

If The Govt AKA "The People" want to prohibit individuals from owning nuclear weapons, and/or other "WMD" or heavy military weapons, all that is needed is a Constitutional Amend that references the 2nd Amend just like when they "regulated" booze with Amend then addressed that with another Amend a few years later. (oh, and they'd need to vacate all current "arms" related convictions, however international arms dealers would not be covered if pushing arms in violation of US law to foreign customers).

Geeze, just follow the Constitution as written not how you wish it was and most problems will disappear. It occurs to me that the last time USA fought a war in interests of USA (and world citizens, who could disagree?) citizens was Mexican-American War and that was also that last time US military action was correctly Constitutionally voted to declare war and without undo foreign meddling or bribing or Yellow Journalism, etc.

Currently, especially during Trump era, we have 3,300 Fed Judges all able to jump in anytime they wish to play co-Commander In Chief. Yeah, if I was tasked with "degrading, diminishing and defeating" the USA's armed forces that would be where I'd start. What if on the morning of D-Day an emergency injunction was handled down by Southern District of NY that gender neutral bathrooms had to be installed on all landing crafts, otherwise it was illegal to order troops to board them?

[bruss01]

Same reason you don't see house builders nailing shingles and a weather vane onto a freshly poured foundation. There's a lot that has to happen between one and the other.

The actual meaning and scope of 2A rights had never been dealt with by SCOTUS until the 21'st century was well under way. It wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010.

Not to mention you have to have the right cases come along WHILE there is a safely sympathetic majority on the bench or you risk doing more harm than good and end up screwing not only ourselves but future generations as well.

Bad laws at the state level do not fall like houses of cards just because SCOTUS levies a decision that undercuts those laws. They still have to be challenged in court by plaintiffs with standing, a good, clean case, and financial backing to see it through all the way. Those aren't as common as you might suppose.

[Big Chudungus]

Originally Posted by bruss01

Same reason you don't see house builders nailing shingles and a weather vane onto a freshly poured foundation. There's a lot that has to happen between one and the other.

The actual meaning and scope of 2A rights had never been dealt with by SCOTUS until the 21'st century was well under way. It wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010.

Not to mention you have to have the right cases come along WHILE there is a safely sympathetic majority on the bench or you risk doing more harm than good and end up screwing not only ourselves but future generations as well.

Bad laws at the state level do not fall like houses of cards just because SCOTUS levies a decision that undercuts those laws. They still have to be challenged in court by plaintiffs with standing, a good, clean case, and financial backing to see it through all the way. Those aren't as common as you might suppose.

pretty sure disarming of European (and colonial) populations was SOP everywhere except the USA prior to 21st, so maybe 2A was being respected if not formally taken up by SCOTUS (because what is there really to say about not even INFRINGED).

Like I mentioned, OTHER SCOTUS rulings sure seem to make decades or centuries of laws at every level fall like house of cards such as Forced Bussing, Roe V Wade, govt services for Illegals, etc, and all that is very "creative" readings and imaginings by SCOTUS.

I'm pretty sure there are lots of guys with various "Illegal gun only, no other crimes or even priors of anything" convictions and prison time.

[Bhobbs]

Politics

And conservatives don’t have the balls to do what they should. Heller was a very soft ruling, designed to appease the anti gunners as much as it was to establish gun rights as an actual right.

[bruss01]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Politics

And conservatives don’t have the balls to do what they should. Heller was a very soft ruling, designed to appease the anti gunners as much as it was to establish gun rights as an actual right.

They did as much as they could while still picking up Kennedy (swing vote was absolutely required) and not closing the door on future opportunities to expand on Heller.

Now they have a veto-proof majority to render a more expansive ruling. Let's see what they do with it. If Alito's leaked decision draft is any indication, they may swing for the fences this time.

[OCEquestrian]

Having the courts is no substitute for having the people, Congress and the executive branch...In the end if we don't come up with a better solution than to ignore the NRA because of Wayne and just count on the judicial system with its judges appointed by politicians, we are eventually doomed.

[homelessdude]

Its time to take back the house and senate and pass a few pro second amendment bills. If Pedo Joe wants to veto them override it. This would involve getting the average stupid voter off his *** and making better choices. I don't see that happening. It would require some or all of the most powerful Republicans to actively challenge the status quo. Thats not what RINOS do. Until that happens our only recourse is to keep fighting in the courts and try to hold them off in the other two branches of career criminals.

[Dirtlaw]

In the world of politics nothing is certain. Epstein. Clinton. Biden. Sussman. The FBI big wigs. Louis Lerner. The list is endless. What if the Supreme Court moves the same direction. That is, political expediency vs. what is right and what is wrong?

[sakosf]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Its time to take back the house and senate and pass a few pro second amendment bills. If Pedo Joe wants to veto them override it. This would involve getting the average stupid voter off his *** and making better choices. I don't see that happening. It would require some or all of the most powerful Republicans to actively challenge the status quo. Thats not what RINOS do. Until that happens our only recourse is to keep fighting in the courts and try to hold them off in the other two branches of career criminals.

Without 60 votes in the Senate it's not really feasible

[Foothills]

The judicial version of this is the Supreme Court declaring that "strict scrutiny" should be applied in all firearms restriction cases. Then vacating and remanding a bunch of pending cases back to the appeals courts. That makes the appeals courts do the work.

[Jimi Jah]

Judicial intimidation will keep bad laws on the books. Do you want to vote your conscience or make sure your kids don't get hurt?

We are seeing this play out now in real time. I believe several decisions are being reworked because of this. Government corruption has gone full circle with all 3 branches compromised.

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

Judicial intimidation will keep bad laws on the books. Do you want to vote your conscience or make sure your kids don't get hurt?

I actually think it will make the NYSRPA decision more expansive, like Judge Lee favorably pointing to the Rooftop Koreans and the Deacons during the Civil Rights movement.

[homelessdude]

Hey JJ, Are your kids unsafe because the court grew a pair. It feels good, try it. Vote your conscience, my kids are stronger than I am. They will be fine.