Guns are on Supreme Court's agenda days after mass shootings

So non-violent felons can be trusted among the gen pop to do everything except defend themselves. Got it.👍
I know that we all wanted the non violent felon gun ban overturned, especially since the statutory law is being misapplied.
see:
18 USC 921
(20)The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A)
any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

But..... it is doubtful the court will hear more than one or two gun cases and an interstate carry case, a ban on carry or semi auto ban will help millions more people.
 
Since we got a conservative majority in the supreme court they are actually doing their job. The supreme court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of laws, not wright laws.
We have just become so accustomed to the left legislating from the bench instead of making laws through legislation, that were not used to seeing the court work the way it's supposed to.
 
There is far from any guarantee that SCOTUS will rule in our favor. The literal death of the 2A could very well be on its way in my lifetime.

The only way that should happen is amend the Constitution - but they won’t do that, it will be by edict, ruling and maybe a law.
 
We have just become so accustomed to the left legislating from the bench instead of making laws through legislation, that were not used to seeing the court work the way it's supposed to.

Lol but the supremes have been punting CONSANTLY on shit that is obviously worthy of consideration.

On top of that they f***ed up things badly too in the interim, like Abramski, Wayfair, etc. Granted the composition was different of the court, but still retarded. And Wayfair got f***ed by Roberts (shocker).
 
Lol but the supremes have been punting CONSANTLY on shit that is obviously worthy of consideration.

On top of that they f***ed up things badly too in the interim, like Abramski, Wayfair, etc. Granted the composition was different of the court, but still retarded. And Wayfair got f***ed by Roberts (shocker).
They are the ones who get to decide which cases to hear. Just because we disagree with there decision doesn't make it wrong.
They know far more about the law than both of us.
 
They are the ones who get to decide which cases to hear. Just because we disagree with there decision doesn't make it wrong.
They know far more about the law than both of us.

Read ABRAMSKI and tell me the decision isn't wrong. Of course its f***ing WRONG! Seriously? It's a pretty basic case.

They took the scaredy faggot option and picked the "CUZ GUNS" answer. Even though it wasn't really a huge gun case. It would have only modified the law in a very tiny way.

Appeal to authority? So basically you're saying the 2A lawyers who jump through 900 hoops to bring some of these cases are dumb? [rofl]

ETA: They surely know more about shirking responsibility than anyone of us, ill grant you that.
 
Read ABRAMSKI and tell me the decision isn't wrong. Of course its f***ing WRONG!

Appeal to authority? So basically you're saying the 2A lawyers who jump through 900 hoops to bring some of these cases are dumb? [rofl]
Not at all. I'm say politicians are trying to avoid passing laws through legislation because they know they can't so they bypass congress and try to legislate from the bench.
The new supreme court is no longer allowing that to happen.
 
Not at all. I'm say politicians are trying to avoid passing laws through legislation because they know they can't so they bypass congress and try to legislate from the bench.
The new supreme court is no longer allowing that to happen.

Most of the cases I'm talking about have nothing to do with "legislating from the bench" and everything to do with correcting an abuse of the law as it is written. The law needs to be interpreted, and ultimately when all else fails its the supreme courts job to do that. Punting 900 times because they don't like the political overtone of a narrowly targeted AWB case is pure faggotry by the court.
 
Most of the cases I'm talking about have nothing to do with "legislating from the bench" and everything to do with correcting an abuse of the law as it is written. The law needs to be interpreted, and ultimately when all else fails its the supreme courts job to do that. Punting 900 times because they don't like the political overtone of a narrowly targeted AWB case is pure faggotry by the court.
They are supposed to present laws to congress and vote on them. Not send them to the supreme court. They are trying to bypass congress when they have a bill that they know won't pass. That's the issue I'm talking about.
It's been happening for a long time but the new supreme court isn't having it.
 
They are supposed to present laws to congress and vote on them. Not send them to the supreme court. They are trying to bypass congress when they have a bill that they know won't pass. That's the issue I'm talking about.
It's been happening for a long time but the new supreme court isn't having it.

So you're basically saying you want the legislative branch to rewrite the 2nd amendment AGAIN to make it , what, "more 2nd amendmenty" ? [rofl]

2A is part of established law. And it's the courts obligation to interpret it properly.
 
So you're basically saying you want the legislative branch to rewrite the 2nd amendment AGAIN to make it , what, "more 2nd amendmenty" ? [rofl]

2A is part of established law. And it's the courts obligation to interpret it properly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I want.
It's up to the legislative branch to write law, not the supreme court.
 
Since we got a conservative majority in the supreme court they are actually doing their job. The supreme court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of laws, not wright laws.
We have just become so accustomed to the left legislating from the bench instead of making laws through legislation, that were not used to seeing the court work the way it's supposed to.
Shall not be infringed....
 
Yes, were all aware of what the 2nd amendment says but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
This isn't about any particular case, it's about legislating from the bench instead of through congress.

Lol the 2nd amendment is the law and it has everything to do with this discussion. Go back to the first post and read the stuff Coyote33 posted, for context. The deal is that SCOTUS has been punting 2a cases like a bunch of cowards for at least 2+ years now. I understand that most cases brought before the court aren't worthy (I know how the system works, maybe not as well as someone like Knuckle Dragger or Rob Boudrie) but somewhere in the raft of cases put forth there's gotta be one or two decent ones. They can't just keep punting "cuz politics".
 
Lol the 2nd amendment is the law and it has everything to do with this discussion. Go back to the first post and read the stuff Coyote33 posted, for context. The deal is that SCOTUS has been punting 2a cases like a bunch of cowards for at least 2+ years now. I understand that most cases brought before the court aren't worthy (I know how the system works, maybe not as well as someone like Knuckle Dragger or Rob Boudrie) but somewhere in the raft of cases put forth there's gotta be one or two decent ones. They can't just keep punting "cuz politics".
They punt cases because the supreme court isn't the place for those cases, not because they are cowards.
The supreme court justices have absolutely nothing to be afraid of since it's a lifetime appointment.
What, exactly, do you think they are afraid of?
 
They punt cases because the supreme court isn't the place for those cases, not because they are cowards.

Lol so you think they should have punted on Heller, too probably then, right? [rofl]

What's been going on with the court the past several years is a travesty.

Sorry you are too blind to see that. I'm done, I won't bother trying to convince you that your position is retarded, that's something only you can discern for yourself.

The supreme court justices have absolutely nothing to be afraid of since it's a lifetime appointment.
What, exactly, do you think they are afraid of?

There's a notion that they fear loss of leigtimacy and risk of this court packing BS. At least that is one of the theories postulated to try to explain Roberts behaviors, at least.
 
Yes, were all aware of what the 2nd amendment says but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
This isn't about any particular case, it's about legislating from the bench instead of through congress.
It is...infringement upon a constitutional right is exactly what scotus should be doing.
 
It is...infringement upon a constitutional right is exactly what scotus should be doing.
The congress proposes a law and votes on it.
Then, if someone feels it is unconstitutional they sue and it's brought before the supreme court. If they feel it's a valid case that warrants their ruling they take the case, just like they did with the handgun ruling in DC. The supreme court overturned that in Heller vs DC.
 
Lol so you think they should have punted on Heller, too probably then, right? [rofl]

What's been going on with the court the past several years is a travesty.

Sorry you are too blind to see that. I'm done, I won't bother trying to convince you that your position is retarded, that's something only you can discern for yourself.



There's a notion that they fear loss of leigtimacy and risk of this court packing BS. At least that is one of the theories postulated to try to explain Roberts behaviors, at least.

The congress proposes a law and votes on it.
Then, if someone feels it is unconstitutional they sue and it's brought before the supreme court. If they feel it's a valid case that warrants their ruling they take the case, just like they did with the handgun ruling in DC. The supreme court overturned that in Heller vs DC.
Gents, go back a bunch of pages. If the Court's conservative majority doesn't receive a case with a superb single-issue pivot - the level of scrutiny the 2nd should receive - they are going to put it aside for now. That's the path, and that's what builds a solid stare decisis foundation for the 2nd. It's how this has proceeded from Heller forward.
 
Even Josh had a bad day over Stinking Monday...


"To be perfectly frank, I would prefer the Court to put Heller out of its misery, and hold the right is limited to the home. That end game would be preferable to this never-ending shell game. So much effort is wasted litigating cases that do not matter. I don't even know if I will bother teaching the Second Amendment in future classes. What's the point? I have to throw my hands up in class and say, "I don't know, and the Court will not tell us."
 
Even Josh had a bad day over Stinking Monday...


"To be perfectly frank, I would prefer the Court to put Heller out of its misery, and hold the right is limited to the home. That end game would be preferable to this never-ending shell game. So much effort is wasted litigating cases that do not matter. I don't even know if I will bother teaching the Second Amendment in future classes. What's the point? I have to throw my hands up in class and say, "I don't know, and the Court will not tell us."
Today, the Supreme Court denied review in three Second Amendment cases. Each case involved a non-violent felon who sought the restoration of Second Amendment rights. And thes cases were brought by leading Second Amendment attorneys. Holloway v. Garland was filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition. Folajtar v. Garland was filed by David Thompson at Cooper & Kirk. And Flick v. Garland was filed by Alan Gura. None of these cases was even relisted. They were denied outright.

What is going on here?
"What is going on here" is PRECISELY the same as was going on with the Court's refusal to examine the blatant fraud in the election: they've been Gotten To, presumably by the same people bringing us The Great Reset. Whether by bribery (the WEF "partners" represent TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth) or by threats doesn't matter.
 
Yeah but if they did pack the courts they need another case and then they would only be able to narrowly rule on whatever the issue is. If on the other hand they took a case with the idea of eliminating stare decisis (existing precedent) or making a broad sweeping decision then it would be like the left taking a poison pill and claiming they won because in the future when they lose control of the court and then all prior precedent would be out the window including their own. In any event the left is playing with dynamite and honestly I would let them blow themselves up. It would be comedy gold.

If they pack the courts it's over. Opposition parties outlawed, the whole totalitarian dance that so many countries have gone through, some repeatedly.

Man this 6-3 court sucks ass. Have these useless backstabber's rules positively on any cases that pertain to individual freedoms yet? Scalia must be spinning in his grave with how disappointing Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have been

Scalia was quickly cremated which eliminated any chance of an autopsy. The left didn't get away with that power grab when McConnell blocked Garland. The game isn't over.
 
Gents, go back a bunch of pages. If the Court's conservative majority doesn't receive a case with a superb single-issue pivot - the level of scrutiny the 2nd should receive - they are going to put it aside for now. That's the path, and that's what builds a solid stare decisis foundation for the 2nd. It's how this has proceeded from Heller forward.
Heller is 100% de facto ignored, some good that turd did.
 
Heller is 100% de facto ignored, some good that turd did.
It takes years and a ton of money for any case to make it to the Court. Those willing to take the cases all the way up do so advisedly; first, see the above - not just the Court but the organizations that brought us Heller and McDonald want to take that path, too. The impact is growing, and regarding the egregious state laws, keep in mind it's been a mere 11 years - yes only 11 - since McDonald, citing Heller, recognized the incorporation of Heller against the states:

McDonald and subsequent/related cases caused Chicago and most of its northern suburbs to repeal their bans on handgun possession
Guy Montag eliminated firearm possession restrictions in public housing
Morris effectively tore down bans on carry/possession on federal lands
Caetano tore down MA's bans and/or egregious license requirements for many common personal defense items (stun guns in the case, but arguably sprays as well)
Illinois now has resident concealed carry licenses and they actually issue
Palmer forced D.C. to create and issue CC licenses, arguably still a "wait and see" regarding how it's administered and probably waiting on a scrutiny case first
In a cluster of related cases, Heller/McDonald is being thrown at NYC, which keeps playing change-the-ordinance to moot cases; they will eventually be heard should the games continue, possibly after a scrutiny case
In a cluster of related cases, Chicago, like NYC, is playing ordinance games on the way to having to allow ranges, and likely gun stores, in the city
Knife laws are about to be challenged nationwide; see Caetano for an idea of how that might go

All those cases we see being decided wrong in the district and circuit courts are going to accumulate until there is a clear split on a specific issue, or until there is a plain case that doesn't depend on scrutiny level. But - and this is huge - no right can be applied correctly when a state argues that it's balancing rights vs. the state interest in public safety until the standard of review is determined. That's literally what decides that argument. Almost everything "on pause" at the Supreme Court is going to start to move forward again after they get a good Circuit split on the specific topic of level of scrutiny for the 2nd and render a hardline decision on a case regarding that level of scrutiny. Meanwhile, only cases where the level of scrutiny would not change the outcome are going to get heard by the Court.
 
Not one of those cases addresses targeted gun bans by type of firearm. which is the end game for the gun control lobby and was also specifically mentioned in Heller not to be allowed if it was in common use.

keep making excuses for them. "it takes years" is an understatement. I'll be f***ing dead from old age before these corrupt pieces of shit do their job.
 
Not one of those cases addresses targeted gun bans by type of firearm. which is the end game for the gun control lobby and was also specifically mentioned in Heller not to be allowed if it was in common use.

keep making excuses for them. "it takes years" is an understatement. I'll be f***ing dead from old age before these corrupt pieces of shit do their job.
? The Chicago area ones most certainly did collapse a broad ban on handguns. The more weird "types" that are invented by law ("assault weapon") are going to depend on scrutiny unless someone writes one super broad again. And those are making their way.

Look, they can do it right, or they can ram them all through and we'll see them undone in short order. Your choice.

You must think the 1st A made it to its current status in just a few years. It sure didn't. These 2A cases are moving like lightning by comparison.
 
Back
Top Bottom