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
  #121  
Old 02-12-2024, 1:06 PM
tomrkba's Avatar
tomrkba tomrkba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dun effed up and moved to SF
Posts: 1,512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=Rickybillegas;28370318]"Rather, this court frequently walks another way. Long ago,
the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an ?opinion of the
United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of
authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration,
but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the
outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi
Constitution.?




From the Hawaiian constitution:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

If the state supreme court was following its constitution, then they would not allow the current set of laws.
__________________
Biden's
Laptop
Matters

Read the Kelly Turnbull novels to see where California is and will go: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=kelly+tur..._2_15_ts-doa-p
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-12-2024, 1:35 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Mark Smith does not believe that the Supreme Court will take this case, due to unfavorable facts and a suboptimal background.
Even if the Eunuchs did take this case and ruled against them, what is to stop Hawaii from simply ignoring whatever the Eunuchs decree anyways? NOTHING. AND, with the current administration in place, Hawaii May simple see any ruling from said Eunuchs as a mandate to do exactly the opposite as a gesture of not one, but two middle fingers to the Eunuchs. Until someone of authority ACTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY imprisons these rogue state lawmakers and the activist judges that support them, nothing will change. Nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-12-2024, 1:54 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is always the nuclear "contempt" option.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-12-2024, 3:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Even if the Eunuchs did take this case and ruled against them, what is to stop Hawaii from simply ignoring whatever the Eunuchs decree anyways? NOTHING. AND, with the current administration in place, Hawaii May simple see any ruling from said Eunuchs as a mandate to do exactly the opposite as a gesture of not one, but two middle fingers to the Eunuchs. Until someone of authority ACTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY imprisons these rogue state lawmakers and the activist judges that support them, nothing will change. Nothing.
The Supreme Court nonetheless needs to deliver solid pro-constitutional originalist rulings for future executive officers to enforce. The Second Amendment community must suffer through the so-called appellate industry, as some like to derisively label the judiciary, to generate the decisions for conservative presidents to back up.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-12-2024, 3:22 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
?suffer through the so-called appellate industry, as some like to derisively label the judiciary?
I take full credit for, as I believe, coining the term Appellate Industry. Yes, it is meant as an insult, as I believe it exists to drain the pocketbooks of those unfortunate enough to be forced into funding it due to the acts communist legislatures and law enforcement officials who enact and enforce unconstitutional laws. The government has forced the need for it, and the judiciary and legal profession has earned a living keeping it moving. The losers and left over debris of the Appellate Industry are the citizens, who must constantly pay to keep it moving, often with little actual result and tangible benefit.

I also take full credit for coining the term Eunuchs of SCOTUS (also meant as an insult), as I believe that the highest court in our country is but a mere paper tiger, whose balls have been torn off by leftist, activist judges of lower appellate courts, who suffer absolutely ZERO consequences for their blatantly anti-constitutional rulings, delays, hoop-dancing, and all the other Bull **** that goes along with it. Sure, a few of the Eunuchs try, but have ultimately failed by placing responsibility for following and enacting their rulings on the same lower appellate courts who have given not one, but now two middle fingers in response.

Will conservative presidents in the future ever back them up? The only answer I have to that question is that here in California, several key anti-gun laws were drafted by Democrat legislators, and signed into law by REPUBLICAN governors. Think of Roberti-Roos (Deukmejian), and then the ban on .50 caliber rifles, etc. (Arnold Schwarzenegger). I am sure that is not the end of it.

Last edited by splithoof; 02-12-2024 at 3:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-12-2024, 4:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
I take full credit for, as I believe, coining the term Appellate Industry. Yes, it is meant as an insult, as I believe it exists to drain the pocketbooks of those unfortunate enough to be forced into funding it due to the acts communist legislatures and law enforcement officials who enact and enforce unconstitutional laws. The government has forced the need for it, and the judiciary and legal profession has earned a living keeping it moving. The losers and left over debris of the Appellate Industry are the citizens, who must constantly pay to keep it moving, often with little actual result and tangible benefit.

I also take full credit for coining the term Eunuchs of SCOTUS (also meant as an insult), as I believe that the highest court in our country is but a mere paper tiger, whose balls have been torn off by leftist, activist judges of lower appellate courts, who suffer absolutely ZERO consequences for their blatantly anti-constitutional rulings, delays, hoop-dancing, and all the other Bull **** that goes along with it. Sure, a few of the Eunuchs try, but have ultimately failed by placing responsibility for following and enacting their rulings on the same lower appellate courts who have given not one, but now two middle fingers in response.

Will conservative presidents in the future ever back them up? The only answer I have to that question is that here in California, several key anti-gun laws were drafted by Democrat legislators, and signed into law by REPUBLICAN governors. Think of Roberti-Roos (Deukmejian), and then the ban on .50 caliber rifles, etc. (Arnold Schwarzenegger). I am sure that is not the end of it.
Still, the gun rights community must play the game, or else even if a strong constitutionalist Republican president were to enter office, he would have nothing to enforce.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-12-2024, 5:22 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 1,154
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Well played splithoof on being a verbavore. "Apellate Industry" and "Eunuchs" are apt and fitting and should be embarrassing to SCOTUS but alas they wear them as badges of honor. I do claim the terms "Castrati' and "Hombres Sopranistos". At least I reclaim them. The Vatican has not used the terms for over two hundred years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-12-2024, 9:31 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,441
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Stephen Halbrook at Volokh, https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/12.../#more-8265186
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-13-2024, 2:17 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What he's highlighting is what I've termed 'the absurdities of Living Constitutionalism.' (I've called it other things as well.) In short, there is no touchstone and the rulings are whatever 'stream of consciousness' can be strung together to (ahem) 'explain' or 'rationalize' the feelz used to arrive at a verdict. For instance, from the piece...

Quote:
...Wilson fails to analyze the actual precedents when it asserts: "Until Heller, the Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment afforded an individual right to keep and bear arms." Well, the Court assumed that the right is individual in Scott v. Sandford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), U.S. v. Miller (1939), Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)...
The key to Heller and McDonald wasn't so much the 'uniqueness' of the thought, but the idea that SCOTUS was, finally, declaring that, for them, the question was 'settled' and was, therefore, incorporated to the states. The idea was to stop dancing around with various 'interpretations' and begin the process of working out the details. It's the very reasoning Scalia himself indicated in post-Heller interviews.

In that sense, what the Hawaii Supreme Court has done is to, in effect, say that Heller needs to be relitigated and a new decision made, one which favors the dissent in Heller. This is why SCOTUS needs to proactively keep reinforcing Heller and making it increasingly difficult to overturn or, short of that, making it publicly more ludicrous to ignore via what the article cites as 'judicial fiat.'
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-13-2024, 8:59 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: 16,470
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I've seen more racism in Hawaii than in Boston. In Boston it was against blacks, Hispanics, Italians, etc.

In Hawaii it was all against whites. A far cry from the 1940's.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-13-2024, 9:10 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 780
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What's the possibility of a GVR with a statement of:

Hey you idiots got it wrong and you don't get to go against our other decisions, go back and do it over.

Would be pretty simple and slap this down quick.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-13-2024, 12:09 PM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Mark Smith does not believe that the Supreme Court will take this case, due to unfavorable facts and a suboptimal background.
I would agree with that opinion, because in spite all the hoopla and consternation this ruling created, it so far affects nothing. It will not change
Hawaii's concealed carry laws negatively (yet), so until it does it will never go to SCOTUS. There will be no injury to any planitiffs until that happens. That's why I think in my opinion this ruling was a hollow gesture that is just another court thumbing it's nose at BRUEN (one of many).
But unlike the other courts (2nd circuit, 3rd circuit, 9th, et.) this one has no teeth.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-13-2024, 12:19 PM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
But isn?t the issue with the HI licensing scheme the same as NYSRPA v Bruen, that HI rarely issues a license? Therefore the licensing serves effectively as a ban without calling it a ban?
Well, this is partially true. Like Mr. Almost heaven points out, several counties in 'good ol' California are operating the same way. I.e. pretending to adhere to BRUEN, but doing everything they can to ignore it.

So, it's not NYSPRA v BRUEN, it's more like CRPA v LASD/LVPD.

For the record, before BRUEN, HI only issued like 4 permits in 17 years.
Since BRUEN, they have issued about 600 since August '23.
So there is movement, but begrudging (kicking and screaming) at best.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-13-2024, 2:08 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,952
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
I would agree with that opinion, because in spite all the hoopla and consternation this ruling created, it so far affects nothing. It will not change
Hawaii's concealed carry laws negatively (yet), so until it does it will never go to SCOTUS. There will be no injury to any planitiffs until that happens. That's why I think in my opinion this ruling was a hollow gesture that is just another court thumbing it's nose at BRUEN (one of many).
But unlike the other courts (2nd circuit, 3rd circuit, 9th, et.) this one has no teeth.
That is why I think a fairly narrow per curium GVR is possible. They do not actually care about the case and they do not want to change the outcome, but they may wish to vacate the insolent, and unnecessary, language so it cannot become precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-13-2024, 4:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
That is why I think a fairly narrow per curium GVR is possible. They do not actually care about the case and they do not want to change the outcome, but they may wish to vacate the insolent, and unnecessary, language so it cannot become precedent.
I think, unfortunately, only three or four Supreme Court Justices have the will and ideological rigor to vote for such an outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-13-2024, 4:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
I would agree with that opinion, because in spite all the hoopla and consternation this ruling created, it so far affects nothing. It will not change
Hawaii's concealed carry laws negatively (yet), so until it does it will never go to SCOTUS. There will be no injury to any planitiffs until that happens. That's why I think in my opinion this ruling was a hollow gesture that is just another court thumbing it's nose at BRUEN (one of many).
But unlike the other courts (2nd circuit, 3rd circuit, 9th, et.) this one has no teeth.


I think you have written a solid practical-minded overarching assessment of the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-14-2024, 10:19 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What he's highlighting is what I've termed 'the absurdities of Living Constitutionalism.' (I've called it other things as well.) In short, there is no touchstone and the rulings are whatever 'stream of consciousness' can be strung together to (ahem) 'explain' or 'rationalize' the feelz used to arrive at a verdict. For instance, from the piece...



The key to Heller and McDonald wasn't so much the 'uniqueness' of the thought, but the idea that SCOTUS was, finally, declaring that, for them, the question was 'settled' and was, therefore, incorporated to the states. The idea was to stop dancing around with various 'interpretations' and begin the process of working out the details. It's the very reasoning Scalia himself indicated in post-Heller interviews.

In that sense, what the Hawaii Supreme Court has done is to, in effect, say that Heller needs to be relitigated and a new decision made, one which favors the dissent in Heller. This is why SCOTUS needs to proactively keep reinforcing Heller and making it increasingly difficult to overturn or, short of that, making it publicly more ludicrous to ignore via what the article cites as 'judicial fiat.'
I agree with you here. Because I don't think SCOTUS will touch this impudence for right now. There is no plaintiff or defendant or formal challenge before them, only impudence. But what I agree what they can do for now is keep reinforcing HELLER.

Right now the HSSC ruling means nothing until their legislature or their law enforcement takes action based on that ruling. However there is the temptation for this cancer to spread to other courts. Some courts are already defying HELLER (don't we know!), but what I mean by the cancer spreading is open defiance rather than a thinly veiled faux adherence to HELLER and BRUEN backed up with fancy, wordy rulings that fly in the face of those two decisions. Other courts may be emboldened to rule in open defiance and then we will actually have the 'constitutional crises' that we've been hearing about for years.

So the danger I see in this ruling is not an impudent, conceited, inarticulate and childish, high school level judgment, but rather the potential for a new more widespread attack on the 2nd amendment, a new push to re-write HELLER as you say in favor of the decent. Or even barring that, open rebellion by courts just declaring that the HELLER dessent was correct.

Last edited by Rickybillegas; 02-14-2024 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-14-2024, 10:21 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
What's the possibility of a GVR with a statement of:

Hey you idiots got it wrong and you don't get to go against our other decisions, go back and do it over.

Would be pretty simple and slap this down quick.
I like this idea, but maybe you can expand on how this would actually work.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-15-2024, 1:41 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
I agree with you here. Because I don't think SCOTUS will touch this impudence for right now. There is no plaintiff or defendant or formal challenge before them, only impudence. But what I agree what they can do for now is keep reinforcing HELLER.

Right now the HSSC ruling means nothing until their legislature or their law enforcement takes action based on that ruling. However there is the temptation for this cancer to spread to other courts. Some courts are already defying HELLER (don't we know!), but what I mean by the cancer spreading is open defiance rather than a thinly veiled faux adherence to HELLER and BRUEN backed up with fancy, wordy rulings that fly in the face of those two decisions. Other courts may be emboldened to rule in open defiance and then we will actually have the 'constitutional crises' that we've been hearing about for years.

So the danger I see in this ruling is not an impudent, conceited, inarticulate and childish, high school level judgment, but rather the potential for a new more widespread attack on the 2nd amendment, a new push to re-write HELLER as you say in favor of the decent. Or even barring that, open rebellion by courts just declaring that the HELLER dessent was correct.
There's actually a concept which has been pushed called 'narrowing from below.' From 2016... Legal scholarship highlight: When lower courts don't follow Supreme Court precedent

Quote:
...But when Supreme Court precedent is relevantly ambiguous, then narrowing is often legitimate, even though it means not adhering to the best available reading of precedent. The high court, after all, isn't the only source of law relevant to lower courts. When dealing with unclear case law, lower courts are often justified in erring on the side of their own first-principles views of the constitutional or other law at issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision to issue unclear precedent can be understood as a kind of delegation to lower courts, authorizing them to make adjustments in light of their own distinctive knowledge and opinions. And when the court's precedent is unclear, affected parties usually know not to rely too strongly on what seems like the best available reading.

Once you know what to look for, narrowing from below is fairly easy to find. Take the court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down a law banning handguns, seemed to establish a fairly rigid historical test for Second Amendment claims, prompting Justice John Paul Stevens's four-justice dissent to "fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table." But very few dominoes ever fell, with the thanks (or blame) going to the lower courts that quickly tamed Heller and curtailed its implications. Recognizing this pattern in a Second Amendment case, Judge Alice Batchelder recently cited my paper on the subject in positing that "[i]t is the lower courts, both we and our sister circuits, that have ? engag[ed] in 'narrowing from below.'"...

The Heller and Boumediene examples might create the impression that narrowing from below necessarily diminishes the Supreme Court's power. But the reality is more complicated. True, narrowing from below enables lower courts to act on their own views of the law and to influence the high court's agenda (such as by creating or avoiding circuit splits). But the Supreme Court itself has a great deal to say about when narrowing from below takes place. By asserting clear rules, the Supreme Court can preclude legitimate narrowing from below - and make any kind of narrowing from below harder to do. And, of course, the Supreme Court stands ready to add new clarity or correct outliers, including through summary reversals like the one it issued last week...

In short, the precedential universe is now too complex to rely only on the familiar concepts of following and overruling, or to limit one's view to conventional precedent. Narrowing from below and Supreme Court signals have become an important part of the story.
Personally, I think the Hawaii decision goes beyond 'narrowing' and, instead, openly defies the 'newer' precedents of things like Heller and Bruen. Let's just say the lack of clarity isn't as overwhelming as is claimed. It may be what their 'thinking' is or, at least, the type of thing they would use as a rationalization. However I would not count on it.

With that said, the steps SCOTUS can take are similar, if they will take them. Such is what we've seen in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence since Heller (2008), from cases such as McDonald (2010) thru Bruen (2022). Unfortunately, such steps take time and a willingness on the part of SCOTUS. Many don't feel we have the time in that Justice Thomas will be 76 and Justice Alito will be 74 this year. Our 'side' counts on Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch as the core grouping for pro-2nd Amendment decisions. The real problem is a lack of confidence in Kavanagh, Coney Barrett, and Roberts.

Worse than that, Roberts doesn't seem inclined to move 'quickly' on virtually anything. While I can appreciate a 'slow and steady' pace, a lack of rapidity does create doubts when such 'narrowing' is too overt. As you indicate, it could cause a 'fever' which spreads among more Liberal courts/circuits. On top of that, Roberts himself is 69 this year. Not exactly 'old,' but not a 'kid' anymore either. In short, the Conservatives on the Court are rapidly 'aging,' meaning time is not necessarily on our side to solidify the current trend as precedent before a new generation takes the balance of power on SCOTUS and who knows where they will go with it once they do.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-15-2024, 11:06 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is a certain segment of the academic, political, and judicial body attuned to the second amendment that is still arguing vociferously the 'militia' interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It's like a cottage industry.

It reminds me of a similar such movement re: "Roe v Wade" which recognized the poorly argued ruling by Blackman (add Justice Ginsburg to that list) and created a cottage industry devoted to 'propping up' the ruling by re-arguing the case with more intellectual vigor.

The difference of course, one was based in favor of a ruling, while the present movement is based on the dissent.

Thankfully, so far the 'militia interpretation' movement is more or less a fringe movement and most of the public and popular media I dare say is accepting, if even begrudgingly the 'right to keep and bear arms' as a public right. The whole thing might be summarized by: "The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but........"

As an example, I read a long transcript of an interview with some Historian on NPR (forgot to save the link), which you would have thought would be a total repudiation of the 'public right', which surprisingly, it was not.

The 'Historian' was somewhat equivocal and presented a lot of what I would disagree with, but did actually accept that the 'public right' was the law of the land and didn't spend much intellectual capital trying to disprove that right.
And this guy was certainly no friend of ours.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 02-15-2024, 11:54 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
There is a certain segment of the academic, political, and judicial body attuned to the second amendment that is still arguing vociferously the 'militia' interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It's like a cottage industry.

It reminds me of a similar such movement re: "Roe v Wade" which recognized the poorly argued ruling by Blackman (add Justice Ginsburg to that list) and created a cottage industry devoted to 'propping up' the ruling by re-arguing the case with more intellectual vigor.

The difference of course, one was based in favor of a ruling, while the present movement is based on the dissent.

Thankfully, so far the 'militia interpretation' movement is more or less a fringe movement and most of the public and popular media I dare say is accepting, if even begrudgingly the 'right to keep and bear arms' as a public right. The whole thing might be summarized by: "The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but........"

As an example, I read a long transcript of an interview with some Historian on NPR (forgot to save the link), which you would have thought would be a total repudiation of the 'public right', which surprisingly, it was not.

The 'Historian' was somewhat equivocal and presented a lot of what I would disagree with, but did actually accept that the 'public right' was the law of the land and didn't spend much intellectual capital trying to disprove that right.
And this guy was certainly no friend of ours.
This is why I feel things need to move with just a bit more rapidity. Yes. By Judicial standards, it's 'only' been 16 years, but the 'acceptance' you reference is still caveated to a point where "shall not be infringed" falls into the same category as...



I suspect that's where this whole thing is leading and what it's actually based in. The Left knows it 'lost' the overarching debate, now it is trying for a 'negotiated settlement' in terms of... If we can't have what we want, then we won't allow you to have what you want, so where can we decide an appropriate 'compromise' is? The problem is that it's not supposed be 'negotiable' and it simply returns us to a variation on...



...instead of a return to...

Quote:
...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 02-15-2024, 4:46 PM
ProfChaos's Avatar
ProfChaos ProfChaos is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Folsom
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the cake diagram. I tried looking for it a while ago for another argument and could not find one large enough to read.
__________________
"The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." -George Orwell 1984

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a "How To" guide.

Time magazine bragging about how they stole the election: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 02-15-2024, 6:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Personally, I think the Hawaii decision goes beyond 'narrowing' and, instead, openly defies the 'newer' precedents of things like Heller and Bruen. Let's just say the lack of clarity isn't as overwhelming as is claimed. It may be what their 'thinking' is or, at least, the type of thing they would use as a rationalization. However I would not count on it.

With that said, the steps SCOTUS can take are similar, if they will take them. Such is what we've seen in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence since Heller (2008), from cases such as McDonald (2010) thru Bruen (2022). Unfortunately, such steps take time and a willingness on the part of SCOTUS. Many don't feel we have the time in that Justice Thomas will be 76 and Justice Alito will be 74 this year. Our 'side' counts on Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch as the core grouping for pro-2nd Amendment decisions. The real problem is a lack of confidence in Kavanagh, Coney Barrett, and Roberts.

Worse than that, Roberts doesn't seem inclined to move 'quickly' on virtually anything. While I can appreciate a 'slow and steady' pace, a lack of rapidity does create doubts when such 'narrowing' is too overt. As you indicate, it could cause a 'fever' which spreads among more Liberal courts/circuits. On top of that, Roberts himself is 69 this year. Not exactly 'old,' but not a 'kid' anymore either. In short, the Conservatives on the Court are rapidly 'aging,' meaning time is not necessarily on our side to solidify the current trend as precedent before a new generation takes the balance of power on SCOTUS and who knows where they will go with it once they do.
I fully understand the concept of narrowing from below; I just wish conservative courts had the ability to utilize the strategy against progressive precedents as effectively as liberals wield it to erode originalist rulings. The Supreme Court places upon right-wing appeals courts such as the Fifth Circuit a shorter leash than the feral leftists in the Second and Ninth Circuits.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 02-15-2024, 6:52 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
I fully understand the concept of narrowing from below; I just wish conservative courts had the ability to utilize the strategy against progressive precedents as effectively as liberals wield it to erode originalist rulings. The Supreme Court places upon right-wing appeals courts such as the Fifth Circuit a shorter leash than the feral leftists in the Second and Ninth Circuits.
Others might not, which is why the portion you clipped provides an explanation.

With that said, it's not an 'inability' to use such a template against Liberal rulings. It's a lack of desire. Conservatives don't necessarily look to 'narrow' a ruling, they tend to look to overturn.

It's one of the differences between the two 'sides.' Liberals look to create confusion and chaos, thereby allowing for a variety of shenanigans. Conservatives, on the other hand, attempt to create a sense of consistency, something that is difficult to achieve when Living Constitutionalists are 'all over the board' in terms of how they rule and when even more confusion/chaos is introduced, it becomes nigh unto impossible.

Look at the thread. We tend to favor directly putting the 'smack down' on the Hawaii Court for ruling inconsistent with SCOTUS precedent and traditional understandings of how the relationship between the states and the Federal Government works. Meanwhile, the ruling may be an attempt to 'narrow from below' and it may be something else. We don't know and it creates questions as to how to 'properly' proceed. Confusion and chaos buys time and inaction from those who approach things differently.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 02-15-2024 at 6:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 02-15-2024, 11:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Others might not, which is why the portion you clipped provides an explanation.

With that said, it's not an 'inability' to use such a template against Liberal rulings. It's a lack of desire. Conservatives don't necessarily look to 'narrow' a ruling, they tend to look to overturn.

It's one of the differences between the two 'sides.' Liberals look to create confusion and chaos, thereby allowing for a variety of shenanigans. Conservatives, on the other hand, attempt to create a sense of consistency, something that is difficult to achieve when Living Constitutionalists are 'all over the board' in terms of how they rule and when even more confusion/chaos is introduced, it becomes nigh unto impossible.

Look at the thread. We tend to favor directly putting the 'smack down' on the Hawaii Court for ruling inconsistent with SCOTUS precedent and traditional understandings of how the relationship between the states and the Federal Government works. Meanwhile, the ruling may be an attempt to 'narrow from below' and it may be something else. We don't know and it creates questions as to how to 'properly' proceed. Confusion and chaos buys time and inaction from those who approach things differently.
I think you have written a solid general characterization of the overarching situation.

The federal elections this November will truly determine the future of this great nation, even more so than 2020. We live in excessively interesting times.
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 2:53 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, 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.



Seams2SewBySusy