-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
24 states urge Supreme Court to take up assault rifle ban case
- Thread starter BruceW
- Start date
Some on the conservative side may not have a strong feeling from Kennedy either. Kennedy is such a squish at times, They may not think he is a reliable vote in favor of overturning the AWB's. We all know the 4 liberals are certain votes against 2a, so the conservatives might now want to roll the dice on Kennedy.
Yup. SCOTUS has a case law bomb on their hand. If you put Miller and Heller together, the Hughes Amendment and NFA are clearly unconstitutional and (this is stretching) carrying full auto m4s everywhere should probably be allowed.
xtry51
NES Member
Because R nominated ones have been so supportive of freedom??
Frankly I'd rather have Hillary nominate raging antis and they go full ban retard.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly.
There have certainly been unpleasant surprises, but on gun rights it has been a reasonably clear divide. We know how Obama's nominees will vote.
European laws are written differently than American. In Europe, unless they have laws saying you're allowed to do "X", it's not legal. Completely opposite of American law, which, unless it's written that you can't, it's legal.
If American legislators attempted to take our possessions, especially our guns, it would end poorly, and they know it. They're only willing to go so far, even the ones who have gone full retard, like Feinstein and Rosenthal.
Australia and the UK have the exact same common law background that the USA does. See what Blackstone's commentaries on the Law of England say about the right to bear arms.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,350
- Likes
- 109,003
Because ruling the ACA was Constitutional was so much more popular?
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
THIS
THIS x 1,000,000,000,000
making stuff up on the internet is fun.
Not this shit again. I thought you were already warned:
No it won't, we'll just devolve further into two diametrically opposed groups of citizens.
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
This makes sense, but I bet some of it is an issue of whether or not they all wanted to expend the effort in trying to work Kennedy over vs just punting the thing. If they think Kennedy is impossible they probably figured out that punting is 100x cheaper than a bad decision, and one that would make the whole court look bad if it went badly.
-Mike
xtry51
NES Member
They can't do anything and won't because they all know that Miller was a huge mistake. Heller clearly was an attempt to skirt the line between reversing Miller and doing nothing. They knew the decision they wrote would raise all of the problems we're pointing out and now they're terrified of the next decision because they painted themselves into a corner.
Either they strike down all AWBs forever thereby nullifying Miller and suddenly literally ALL federal gun laws become void by necessity, or they support AWBs which effectively allows a "legitimate law" path to full bans on all mag fed rifles.
They don't want either of those, mostly because they are cowards and don't want change.
Either they strike down all AWBs forever thereby nullifying Miller and suddenly literally ALL federal gun laws become void by necessity, or they support AWBs which effectively allows a "legitimate law" path to full bans on all mag fed rifles.
They don't want either of those, mostly because they are cowards and don't want change.
It's not an either-or proposition, though... they always have an out though, they could still EASILY rule that a typical, federal style AWB is invalid because the firearms at this point banned by such a law are indeed in common use, but also but proffer that garbage like the NFA is valid under the "reasonable restrictions" bullshit, because of the long amount of time the NFA has been in effect and has gone uncontested. Basically "reasonable restrictions" is an excuse with a universal adapter on it, and they can get away with it, especially on stuff that is considered old legacy issues like NFA, Prohibited Persons, GCA68, etc. They already more or less laid down a plank for that in Heller saying that some limited restrictions are "okay". They just don't want to elaborate on the issue I think because of what Smash05 says (maybe Kennedy is wonky... after all he did vote against cert, I believe) or they are just too big of wussbags and don't want to hear the antis whine forever afterwards after they get tiger uppercutted in the mouth again.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
-Mike
xtry51
NES Member
It's not an either-or proposition, though... they always have an out though, they could still EASILY rule that a typical, federal style AWB is invalid because the firearms at this point banned by such a law are indeed in common use, but also but proffer that garbage like the NFA is valid under the "reasonable restrictions" bullshit, because of the long amount of time the NFA has been in effect and has gone uncontested. Basically "reasonable restrictions" is an excuse with a universal adapter on it, and they can get away with it, especially on stuff that is considered old legacy issues like NFA, Prohibited Persons, GCA68, etc. They already more or less laid down a plank for that in Heller saying that some limited restrictions are "okay". They just don't want to elaborate on the issue I think because of what Smash05 says (maybe Kennedy is wonky... after all he did vote against cert, I believe) or they are just too big of wussbags and don't want to hear the antis whine forever afterwards after they get tiger uppercutted in the mouth again.
-Mike
I don't see how you rule common use and not raise a further tide of challenges for other military standard issue hardware. If they take a common use tack, there's a shot ton of more equipment that would fit that category.
Yeah but you're also assuming that the court even cares about the military hardware question and all that sort of thing that came up in Miller, it really doesn't. Miller is regarded as kind of a garbage case, based off poor evidence. (and conclusions that are contradictory.... for example, guns should serve a militia purpose but we're going to turn around and try to tell people that a trench gun or other short shotgun isn't useful in a militia purpose.
![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
With that caveat in there it ends up being an empty hull, for gun owners. If Miller was turned into an NFL officiating action, this is what it would look like...
-Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember to that AWB is a strict ban without exception, whereas the NFA is basically a tax. If the ban on new machine gun transfers were struck down, the NFA as a tax and license scheme is probably Constitutional, assuming it is effectively at this point a deminimus tax. The AWB as presently constructed is an all or nothing proposition, with a grandfather clause.
NFA is only "affordable" now at $200 a transfer because of inflation. When it was implemented, in 1934, $200 was a ****load of money.
I know this isn't the first line of defense when we're talking about inherent rights - but if the government decides they're going to go confiscate guns - we are also talking about another legal problem.
They're demanding you turn over your PROPERTY.
Are they going to compensate me for that?
This is just a back of a napkin calculation - but if there's 300 million guns in the country - and those guns are worth on the average of $500 each - we're talking about......
$150,000,000,000
That's 150 BILLION dollars. Who's coughing up the money for that?
They're demanding you turn over your PROPERTY.
Are they going to compensate me for that?
This is just a back of a napkin calculation - but if there's 300 million guns in the country - and those guns are worth on the average of $500 each - we're talking about......
$150,000,000,000
That's 150 BILLION dollars. Who's coughing up the money for that?
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
You want to see a paradigm change in regards to gun laws?
Get on the ISIS Twitter account and suggest that they send 12-15 of their guys up to San Francisco and go all terroristy on a gay rights parade and a bunch of the high tech businesses in town. Suggest that they bring the guns in from Mexico - tell them there's plenty of Fast and Furious stuff down there cheap.
Then sit back and watch the liberals twist themselves apart.
NFA as a tax is a lie though, if it was "just about the tax" it could be simply collected by an FFL and then a transfer effectuated like any other title 1 firearm.
Not to mention, when's the last time you had to get FINGERPRINTS and a signoff from a police chief, or have a corp/llc/trust just to pay some taxes on something you bought?
The $200 is just window dressing for the endless pile of bullshit it takes to get that one little stamp.
It'd be different if you could just walk into an 07 plonk your extra 200 bucks down on the counter and walk out with the SBR or
whatever. Instead you have to wait friggan months. A right delayed is a right denied.
-Mike
