24 states urge Supreme Court to take up assault rifle ban case

Glendagoodwitchar15.jpg
 
The MSM is now reporting that SCOTUS has essentially told states they can ban semi-autos. I assume the best plan is to still try to get one of these cases in front of SCOTUS. Isn't worst case that SCOTUS continues to deny cert or upholds the state's right to ban, in which case we're no worse off than where we are now?
 
Well, that and frankly I think there's a lack of intestinal fortitude in the sense that they love avoiding extremely controversial issues at nearly all costs. It almost seems like they only take up things like RKBA cases because they would be embarrassed if they didn't. For example with Heller there was a bunch of press surrounding the case even in legal circles, even a bunch of liberal types that hate guns but respect the law also were more or less forced to say that the case had legitimacy behind it. So the justices would have looked like a bunch of *******s for denying it cert because Alan Gura basically had them over a barrel in terms of legitimacy of the case itself, it was flawless.

I think there's this institutional sloth where SCOTUS wants to say to gun owners "we gave you your one nugget in this century, now go away." Even though they won't come out and say it, you know they're thinking it.

-Mike

In my non-expert opinion, this is why I think the challenges to the NY and CT bans have a better chance of seeing the light of day; even if it is for nothing more than to reverse and remand. The appellate decisions were supported using a bastardized version intermediate scrutiny which has potential implications well beyond just 2A cases. Therefore, it's possible these cases get sent back down for proper application of intermediate scrutiny. In the end, it's not much but, it's still something.
 
The really priceless part is the OP misusing the term "assault rifle" in the title of the thread. For a second I thought I was on DailyKos, where they do that intentionally.
 
The MSM is now reporting that SCOTUS has essentially told states they can ban semi-autos. I assume the best plan is to still try to get one of these cases in front of SCOTUS. Isn't worst case that SCOTUS continues to deny cert or upholds the state's right to ban, in which case we're no worse off than where we are now?

Denying cert is essentially status quo, so you're right, no worse than it is now. None of these anti states are afraid of the federal government anyways, so it's not as if its going to embolden them to do worse things, they're already going full retard,.

-Mike
 
Justice Thomas proves, once again, why he is my favorite Justice on the Court. That was an excellent dissent. I wish he was running things over there. Can we clone him a couple of times and pack the Court with him? Heh.
 
How long until Mass tries and passes a bill completely making possession ILLEGAL with no grandfather clause? I bet that turd Linsky is thinking about it
 
It's still not that easy. It adds to the governmental debt - which adds to the weakness of the government.

A government by the way - that is already on extremely shaky ground finance wise.

Fair point, but I stand by mine. Any kind of confiscation with "compensation" is a short term play with no regard for long term consequences. Pretty much how the existing debt got racked up.
 
so...the supreme court is NOT on the side of 2a. THAT is a sad fact. The only hope now is wining the presidency, house, and senate.
 
Back
Top Bottom