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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS August Giveaway ***Ruger SR40***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by mikeyp, Aug 12, 2014.
Another legal mulligan to "get it right"?
Does this mean dad came home and told Johnny to go paint the fence the right way?
Just to warn you guys.....I got an infection blocked alert when I clicked on that link from my Avast anti virus software. I'm on a MAC so tread lightly you Mac users and you PC users might want to be careful as well
This is pretty much it. Although the original appeals decision was written by the Circuit's Chief Judge, a Clinton appointee (not that Senior Judge gives him any extra pull).
So is there a good chance that the en-banc will basically say the lower court did fine, now be quiet and go about your business?
Is this all really just pre-game until it gets to the Supreme Court?
En Banc Hearing Scheduled for May 11
As far as I know, this will be the first hearing in an AWB challenge since SCOTUS GVR'd Caetano back to the SJC. Both Kolbe and amicus NRA made good use of this new decision.
Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, Kolbe, et. al.
Brief of Defendants-Appellees Maryland
Thanks to Calguns.net for the links.
Good background information if you just tuned in: http://www.marylandshallissue.org/j...er/14-kolbe-v-hogan-formerly-kolbe-v-o-malley
Is this the correct tl;dr version?
That's what happened in the original circuit court 3 judge panel decision. Soon after that, the circuit court said, hey wait, we're gonna have all the judges look at this again. That's the hearing that's happening May 11.
Actually, the circuit court said "we don't like this decision so we are going to try to reverse it".
Crap, now I'm confused again.
The Circuit court didn't like the lower court's decision to allow assault weapon bans?
Slightly different. A portion of the circuit court (a three judge panel that split) didn't like the district court's decision to allow the AWB. Now the entire Circuit - all active judges - has voted to rehear the case so that they can decide if the district court's decision was 'correct'.
The possible silver lining here is that Caetano gave the panel decision a little more gravitas.
The Federalist: How Fourth Circuit’s Support For ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans May End Them
The Ruling Was So Bad It Could Prompt Redress
I said it before and I'll say it again, we need Gorsuch in asap.
Need to use nuclear option if necessary. If ever, NOW is the time!
Ugh. It seems like things are starting to come to a head around modern sporting rifles. It would be great to get a solid decision in our favor on this, but somehow I have the feeling that whatever happens it will sidestep providing relief for us in MA.
If you believe in the 2A at all, whatsoever, I think MSRs are really the core of it as a check on government power in 2017. Really there needs to be at least some rollback on NFA as well, at least the 86 ban, but if we can't protect semi auto MSRs, that would be a very big blow to the core purpose of the 2a.
Republicans don't know how to wield power....expect a bunch of moaning about how they only have the house, senate and white house.
"I said it before and I'll say it again, we need Gorsuch in asap." ***
And one more conservative nomination before I would feel comfortable. Time for Ruthie to go to the retired judge's home.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch
I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."
This is why I was hoping that Trump was going to nominate Hardiman. Alas, we are stuck with Gorsuch. Best thing to do is get him on the court asap and hope that the next nominee is more pro-2A.
That quote from him is exactly one word too long.
IMHO you're reading too far into that statement. I think he's simply being intellectually honest about the fact that, at ground level, there are limited legal reasons for infringement- for example, someone is convicted of a crime and imprisoned. That is still an infringement; although there's also a bunch of fun legal constructs around that; in the respect that someone who is imprisoned is a lesser form of citizen and only partially retains rights.
None of it ultimately matters because if another RKBA case ever makes it to the supreme court in our lifetime, it's not going to be something that is that weak and nuanced that one conservative justice is going to flip on it or cause a shit fest over it. It's going to be something more along the
lines of like "oh, the AG in state X banned a bunch of guns but did not follow protocol for (insert truckload of broken legal principles here) for things
like takings issues, etc. Some of these actions (like Healey's BS) might even get destroyed while dodging the 2nd amendment in the
Also, Gorsuch doesn't strike me as being retarded, either, in terms of actually looking at the law. In order to justify the infringement he would have to ignore things like the whole "guns in common use" bit, and I don't think he's that dense. Contrast that with other jurists when they get questioned about RKBA and they start mumbling ragtime about "public safety interests" and other bullshit, Gorsuch goes straight to a basic reference instead.
Basically, if you think he's going to be less reliable than say, even Anthony Kennedy, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Not to mention Gorsuch is a nice segue into cajoling other justices (like Kennedy) into retiring so a mostly conservative majority can be maintained.
I am actually pretty optimistic about the direction that things are heading. I think all it would take is for one of these cases that addresses "killy-features" to go get in front of the supreme court and the party is over for over-stepping libtard-states.
There is a tidalwave of statistical data, research and public support that would support ditching feature bans and the concept of the NFA once and for all. Each time these states impose a restriction it is another nail in the anti's coffin. When you look at the inconsistency and inequities from state to state it doesn't take legal scholar to see that constitutional liberties are not being shared equally.
No change will every start at the state level, MA is always going to be stuck on full-retard because guns. But is the supreme court comes down with "because-constitution" a lot of things will change in a hurry. States will still cling to their consumer safety bullcrap but the bans, say buh-bye smell ya later.
Gorsuch is a taut jurist, but we'll see what nuanced decision-making comes into play when the court is faced with the possibility of striking down a state's AWB with the prospect of that effectively striking down the AWBs of other states, given the power structure in this country hates the very idea the serfs can be armed at all. I don't contend Gorsuch is a bad choice for the RKBA but rather he is about as good as it gets in that regard--which isn't great. Setting extremely low expectations is advisable.
Given the guns in common use thing I think ultimately if it makes it to the supremes (and thats a big IF, as the courts are loathe to visit the 2nd) I don't think AW bans are long for this world.
That said, I doubt that the courts will stop the shithole states from being douchebags about it; as they basically can get away with murder on anything that falls short of a full out ban. So we should perhaps expect a victory, to be followed up by a dump truck full of state level garbage laws that would become "reasonable restrictions" or get passed off as such similar BS. For example I can see mass getting away with douchebaggery like passing a law that says you have to have a green card (or some similar special license) to buy or possess an "AW" if you didn't already have it at a certain date, or other garbage like that. It is likely that they can legally get away with making AR/AK/etc legally annoying to own and obtain without getting it cast as a full on infringement.
Any law is full on infringement
Separate names with a comma.