Maybe Knuckle Dragger will correct me, but you as a MA resident have an interest in this case. The more circuit courts have consistent findings, the less likely it is for a case to make it to the SCOTUS. If the 2nd circuit court says an AWB is ok, then the 1st circuit does also, that's not good.
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Judge: ct awb legal
- Thread starter BeastlyAdams
- Start date
Maybe Knuckle Dragger will correct me, but you as a MA resident have an interest in this case. The more circuit courts have consistent findings, the less likely it is for a case to make it to the SCOTUS. If the 2nd circuit court says an AWB is ok, then the 1st circuit does also, that's not good.
In quickly scanning the decision I realize that all the judge is doing is applying the same logic that's already been upheld by the Second Circuit:
I think you misunderstood "good". The more states pulling shit like this the closer we are to totally not giving a shit what laws are established.
But I agree with you that this wouldn't be good for us. We both know if it's time to turn in semi autos it's time to use them. (Most wouldn't )
That's correct. One of the things that can prompt SCOTUS to grant cert in a case or cases is divergence in the finding of lower courts. If the lower courts are consistently coming to the same conclusions on a particular legal issue - all other factors being equal - SCOTUS is less likely to grant a cert petition.
However, I think with these Second Amendment cases generally, it's not just the final outcomes that count. How the lower courts are getting to their decisions is as a big, or even bigger, issue than the decisions themselves. SCOTUS really left the scrutiny door wide open in Heller & McDonald make it much harder for the lower courts to make good decisions and leaving them a very blank slate upon which to develop 2A jurisprudence.
On the one hand I understand the desire to let the law 'evolve' in the lower courts so that when it does come again to SCOTUS they'll have much more material to work with. On the other hand, it makes it really, really hard on the lower court judges who really want to do the work and put out good, sound decisions. District courts are not the places for cases of first impression. These judges generally want to be able to apply the law and well developed precedent. They can't do that here and the Supreme Court hasn't given them a lot of guidance.
StevieP
NES Member
IANAL. Could someone who is, or who's familiar with the term 'scrutiny' please give us a the Cliff's Notes version of intermediate vs. strict scrutiny, and how it applies in a case such as this?
Still think the courts are going to settle this guys? There's a president that proclaims am end run around congress and they applaud. He interferes with the scotus during the obamacare fight and magically pulls it out of his ass and you expect the courts to protect your rights now?
If they start coming for your shit use 2a for what it was designed for and start shooting. Hand em over to the tyrannical .gov and then expect that same .gov to protect you. But you want your life without hassles hence why those 4% smucks lined up and registered.
If they start coming for your shit use 2a for what it was designed for and start shooting. Hand em over to the tyrannical .gov and then expect that same .gov to protect you. But you want your life without hassles hence why those 4% smucks lined up and registered.
Nobody is going to get to be a hero and go down in flames Waco style because any JBT come door-to-door confiscating guns. It's a war of attrition, undermining the culture of Freedom, outlawing the new manufacture and trade/transfer within family, so that when true, Freedom-Loving American Patriots die, their guns will die with them.
It's encouraging that only 4% complied, but depressing that it doesn't matter, because the real goal is for the guns to be irrelevant in 50 - 100 years. No one in Government is going to start a Civil War with the 96% who won't comply in the next 1 - 50 years, but they are laying all the groundwork there to be no guns in 100 years.
It's encouraging that only 4% complied, but depressing that it doesn't matter, because the real goal is for the guns to be irrelevant in 50 - 100 years. No one in Government is going to start a Civil War with the 96% who won't comply in the next 1 - 50 years, but they are laying all the groundwork there to be no guns in 100 years.
Last edited:
IANAL either, so I'll do my best.
When evaluating the constitutionality of a law there are basically three levels of scrutiny that can be applied. When a challenged law implicates or infringes the exercise of a constitutional right, or applies to a suspect class (race, gender, alienage, etc.) courts are supposed to apply some form of heightened scrutiny. These are not hard and fast standards and there's a lot of nuance and wiggle room depending upon the specific challenge and right. The problem with 2A cases is they keep applying rational basis and calling it intermediate.
To pass strict scrutiny a challenged law or policy must pass three tests: 1) It must be justified by a compelling government interest (like keeping people safe) 2) It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling government interest & 3) it must be the least restrictive means available for achieving that interest.
To pass intermediate scrutiny a law or policy only has to serve an important government interest in a way that's substantially related to that interest.
A law or regulation passes the rational basis test if it is rationally related to the government's justification of the law or regulation. It is highly deferential to the government's reasoning and shouldn't normally be applied to fundamental rights.
That one line says it all: the court is failing. The whole frickin point of the court system is to smack down the Executive and Legislative branches when they overstep their constraints in the constitution.
"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
I got thinking about how the way the ruling was phrased, and it seems like a very slippery slope. Could that logic be applied to 1A, 3A, and 4A?
I got thinking about how the way the ruling was phrased, and it seems like a very slippery slope. Could that logic be applied to 1A, 3A, and 4A?
^^This. I read this article again, and essentially it says that if the Government thinks an individuals rights don't support the Greater Good, the Government can arbitrarily curtail them as it sees fit. Really?
Did a judge in the United States write that (effectively, I paraphrased)?
I won't bother with the obvious stupidity of it, but even if you argue that it is "substantially" related to public security when only a few percent of gun crimes involve rifles and a small fraction of that "assault weapons"? Judges should have to take a law to uphold the law or something. Oh wait..
It sure sound's that way to me..It seems that it would allow any infringement if it meets a goverment goal..
StevieP
NES Member
CCDL and NRA are definitely involved.
http://ccdl.us/blog/
appeal is already filed, from the looks of it.
http://ccdl.us/blog/
appeal is already filed, from the looks of it.
BattleSnail
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,140
- Likes
- 1,055
truth.
Is it good for us that they use this language claiming an importance to public safety? All evidence points to AWB being ineffective. Shouldnt they have to prove that it has a SUBSTANTIAL impact on public safety?
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Stop making sense man. Don't be rational. You know too many liberals don't think that way.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Who is he (the judge)? Where does he live? What are his associations?
Last edited:
Similar threads
