Effect of Bruen on old cases like Pena

[librarian72]

I see the Roster folding soon - it cannot and never could be upheld by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity and fealty to the Constitution.

So, you are saying that the 9th circuit will keep the roster in place....

[abinsinia]

In the Pena case the judge stopped at step 1 , he claimed the roster did not burden the 2nd amendment. I thing I recall reading the decision and being sadden by how stupid the judge was.

[aBrowningfan]

So, you are saying that the 9th circuit will keep the roster in place....

How?

[curtisfong]

How?

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

[cleonard]

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

Did United States maintain a list of so called safe weapons in 1791 or 1868? The answer is no and therefore the roster is unconstitutional. End of analysis. The arguments you list are not valid arguments to make is any way shape or form. It ends with the historical analysis.

Judges have their hands severely tied by Thomas's opinion. He shutdown the normal legal gymnastics. We will see if they can come up with unanticipated circumventions.


Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk

[curtisfong]

It ends with the historical analysis.

The 9th circuit will claim the sun sets in the east until SCOTUS instructs them otherwise, verbatim, word for word.

[press1280]

I would think these "intermediate scrutiny" cases would effectively be overruled to the point where a district judge can enter a contradictory opinion on it since we are sort of on a blank slate. But I guess we'll find out soon.

[5literford]

The 9th circuit will claim the sun sets in the east until SCOTUS instructs them otherwise, verbatim, word for word.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-says-several-gun-153527772.html

[Drivedabizness]

Old cases that have published opinions may be overruled or criticized. Peruta has a published opinion that says there is no RIGHT to a CCW. Bruen says that there IS a right to carry, but that the state may license the practice under a shall issue law, i.e., there IS a right to a CCW. So Peruta is dead as of this very moment.

Young v. Hawaii is technically still open since it is still pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth ruled that there was no RIGHT to bear arms outside of one's own house/property. Undoubtedly the cert. petition will be granted and the en banc decision summarily reversed with instruction to reconsider in light of Bruen. The decision in the Ninth MUST be to rule that Young has a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense (or defense against the wild boar that want to eat him), and that Hawaii's ban on issuance of licenses to civilians is unconstitutional. This shall soon come to pass.

Bruen says nothing about arms, hinting that regulations on arms may be permissible, but not ruling on the issue at all. Those challenges are pending cert., and we will know soon enough whether the Court will take any of those cases. Meanwhile, all the existing cases on bump stocks, assault weapons, etc. remain good law at this point in time. Even if one or more of those cases is taken up, we will not know the outcome for another year. So you may as well go bowling and drinking in the mountains with the elves.

Eau contraire: Bruen further defines the 2A and NOT just in regards to bear outside the home. More specifically it provides guidance on review of 2A - not just CCW cases. You might want to review and rethink.

[Drivedabizness]

"As long as one pistol remains on the roster, it does not prevent anyone from buying a pistol. Furthermore, it is up to the firearms industry to insure they continue to make safe pistols, and they should be prohibited from selling unsafe firearms anyway." FGG said this is valid, and he's the expert.

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

[tocino]

Was curious, does Bruen potentially affect out of state private party sales or are we still stuck only buying between Californians?

[FreshTapCoke]

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

He added to the NYSRPA v Bruen thread.

Was curious, does Bruen potentially affect out of state private party sales or are we still stuck only buying between Californians?

Not now but theoretically in the future it could. I'm of the opinion it can even eliminate FFLs altogether.

[IVC]

Does FGG even post here any more? Not gonna lie - he made me mad but he also made A LOT of valid points about the mismanagement of the self-appointed (and not based on any apparent merits to me) "smart" / "right" people who led us to so many defeats post OLL. Fabio sagely called out the deficits in the arguments. Did he disappear?

Goes both ways - FGG was right because the system was/is corrupt and he understood it enough to the point where he could peddle his "legal expertise" to match how the courts ended up ruling. Looked like a genius at the time.

Post-Bruen technically nothing changed - Heller still says what it always has and McDonald still incorporates 2A against the states. The only real effect is that Bruen stops the judicial rebellion. Suddenly, FGG-s legal opinions are all losing propositions and are proven wrong. Doesn't look like a genius anymore.

Both sides in the early post-Heller battles underestimated the political aspect of the courts and how the personal hostility of judges against guns and gun culture would affect the outcome of 2A cases. If FGG pointed out that the courts would *misinterpret* Heller because of their personal beliefs and that a case like Bruen would be needed and would eventually come, then FGG would still look like a genius. But because he based his "superior opinions" on legal arguments, the moment those legal arguments are invalidated by the SCOTUS he loses credibility. He's now just one of the cogs in the system that is on the losing side (at this time) and his opinions are that of the dissent in Bruen.

[BAJ475]

Does FGG even post here any more?...

Yes, he reappeared just recently.

[TruOil]

He added to the NYSRPA v Bruen thread.



Not now but theoretically in the future it could. I'm of the opinion it can even eliminate FFLs altogether.

Such a dreamer. Bruen does not directly apply to the California roster. It is an open question as to whether the test enunciated in Bruen will apply to firearms as opposed to only the right to keep or bear; the 2A is nonspecific as to whether we have a right to bear any and all arms out there.

Meanwhile, there is no ban on buying Rostered handguns from out of state, plus any long guns that do not fall within the definition of "assault weapons." I think the ban on silencers and NFA items will continue and be upheld. Nor do I see FFLS being eliminated; the government still has a right to prevent guns from being sold to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill, and thus it is hard to conceive of a legal basis for eliminating the 4473.