-
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.
Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
Al458
NES Member
I think the government forcing you to acquire a license and pay a tax in order to practice a constitutionally protected individual right is akin to a poll tax and should be unconstitutional. I dont want to go too far off topic from what this thread and case is about, my original comment isnt about this case, I was just questioning other rulings the ma courts had made using their own words from this particular opinion and wondering how they came to a different conclusions in other cases
Kicker96FS
NES Member
Because gunzzzzzzzzzz
Garys
NES Member
The only way I see it happening is be a judicial ruling. Which, frankly, I don't see happening in my lifetime. Right now, the only Justice that I can conceive of agreeing with that is Thomas. By extension, that would mean that newspapers can't be taxed, nor could, at least in theory our cable bill. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives us the right to read a newspaper.
I agree with Al458, who summed it up nicely.
Of course, we all know that the Second Amendment is second both in number and class.
I agree with Al458, who summed it up nicely.
Of course, we all know that the Second Amendment is second both in number and class.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,494
- Likes
- 33,490
A problem is that SCOTUS may still not want to touch a gun case. It takes 4 to grant cert; 5 to win. It is quite possible that a justice who would vote with us may decide that now is not the time to rock the boat. Just look at how the unsealing of juvenile records in MA case was denied cert by scotus a few years ago.
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
It's way over due; the the rights of the people need to be upheld. The boat needs a good rocking.
This is the core of the problem. Conservatives by our nature care deeply about societal stability, while leftists' goal is to break it down in service of "social justice". So history is replete with tales of leftists pushing the envelope leftward and then conservatives coming in and stopping any further progression. But that's a recipe for constant leftward movement. We need conservatives that will unabashedly, unapologetically, roll shit back.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
If that’s the case then there is simply no point in voting for pro gun candidates or supporting judge nominees. Might as well vote for liberals and get it over with. If we worked this hard to get like minded people behind the gavel then by god they better start representing my and our civil rights otherwise it’s all wasted effort.
Not in the 1st Circus.
Unlike every other circuit, CA1's rule all but mathematically preclude en banc review. There are too few judges to make the numbers work. At a minimum you'd need a dissent and maybe have one of the other judges changing their mind.
The Institute for Justice's Short Circuit podcast had a nice review of CA1's decision in Gould. It's worth your time to listen to it.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,494
- Likes
- 33,490
The 2A is a second class right.
MachineHead
NES Member
Been saying the quoted text for years. Licensing fees, taxes on firearms and ammo, etc are exactly a poll tax.
Actually, it's worse. Voting isn't an enumerated constitutional right.
It's not?
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
amm5061
NES Member
It is, it's just not in the bill of rights. The most recent is the 26th Amendment which gave the vote to everyone 18 and up. There's a couple before that for women, African Americans, etc.
Would you say the same thing about taxes on computers, or paper, or printers, or radios? What about licensing fees for radio stations?
Nope, that just says that voting cannot be denied based on those things. It doesn't say you can't be denied the vote, just that you can't be denied because of those things.
Now, the fact that in many states felons who have served their time can't vote seems like a violation of the 15th.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Try again "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied "
You sure it just says that, and not also something else?
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
I agree.
That's not the end of the sentence, and there's no comma to separate the rest as a separate clause, and, there IS a clause that clearly limits it.
If the 15th amendment means what you say, the 19th should be completely unnecessary, as would the 23rd, 24th, and 26th. And even with those, we don't let citizens under 18 vote, or felons in some states.
Don't forget that the idea that every citizen would vote in every election didn't exist in 1788; it was generally understood that states could come up with any method they wanted to choose electoral college delegates. A state could literally decide that the governor or state senate could pick who the state was voting for, without a state election.
Compare that to the 2nd amendment, which has no qualifiers at all: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (period, full stop)
Or compare it to the 1st amendment, which also has no qualifiers.
Or to the 4th amendment, which *does* have qualifiers.
Clearly the qualifiers (or lack of) matter.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Its clear as crystal to me. Here is the whole thing.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Milktree, I don’t know what you are trying to argue. He said it wasn’t an enumerated right. It’s enumerated twice.
Whiskeywon
NES Member
You're missing the point. Thus putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence. What he is referring to is the fact that since they included the second bold line above leaves to reason that there ARE reasons to exclude somebody from voting that are not listed as reasons why. Which is why felons are able to be excluded.
That being said it is for all intents and purposes enumerated due to the fact nobody in their right mind would touch it.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
OK, thanks
Now I'm confused... who is "he" here?
Every enumeration of voting rights in The Constitution has a class or classes it applies to. "... cannot be denied based on... " Not one of the examples say, "... cannot be denied." (with a period and no qualifications)
Here's a plain English example:
"... cannot be fired based on race or sex." is *NOT* the same thing as "... cannot be fired."
The difference is that the first one allows for people to be fired, just not because their black or a woman; whereas the second makes it impossible to fire anyone.
What I'm saying is that voting is *NOT* a universal enumerated right in The Constitution. The fact that every court treats it that way is separate from what the actual words in The Constitution say.
MachineHead
NES Member
Yes to all.
