Judge: ct awb legal

[PaulD]

Who is he? Where does he live? What are his associations?

He lives in CT. Beyond that I'm not at liberty to say.

The info isn't exactly a revelation anyway.

 

[SpaceCritter]

He lives in CT. Beyond that I'm not at liberty to say.

The info isn't exactly a revelation anyway.

**** him where he takes his breakfast. He's a traitor. (The judge, I mean.)

 

[Lank]

****I GHN SECEDE FROM THIS UNHOLY ALLIANCE

Now that I have everyones attention, 1/2 the country wants to live like euronanny dependent libtards, and, well, there are people like us.


310 million people cannot be ruled by 535 (give or take) omnipotent, clandestine and vain, central planners.

There, I said it.

- - - Updated - - -

He lives in CT. Beyond that I'm not at liberty to say.

The info isn't exactly a revelation anyway.

Why? Mob rule is the desired outcome of the contemporary progressive.

 

[SpaceCritter]

****I GHN SECEDE FROM THIS UNHOLY ALLIANCE

Now that I have everyones attention, 1/2 the country wants to live like euronanny dependent libtards, and, well, there are people like us.


310 million people cannot be ruled by 535 (give or take) omnipotent, clandestine and vain, central planners.

There, I said it.

- - - Updated - - -



Why? Mob rule is the desired outcome of the contemporary progressive.

Or....

Partition. It'll likely still be ugly for awhile (witness Ireland), but eventually...

 

[Serapis]

Watch closely the dividing lines for gun control. In 50 years they might be international territory lines. California is going to be a long way from New England, it's closet ally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dcmdon]

Everyone knew this was going to be the result. Fed district court is very liberal.

This will be appealed to the Second Circuit federal court. It is a reasonable expectation that this will fail also. The whole purpose of this exercise is to get to the Supreme Court. That is the only place we will get a fair shake.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[Realtor MA]

Can any lawyers here shed some light on the legal difference between 'burden' and 'infringement'? Infringement in my mind is a direct transgression ie) a brick wall in the path, whereas a burden is something that can be worked around ie) a hurdle. I think its a fine line but im sure the judge used that word very carefully. Lawyers what do you say?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

 

[PaulD]

Can any lawyers here shed some light on the legal difference between 'burden' and 'infringement'? Infringement in my mind is a direct transgression ie) a brick wall in the path, whereas a burden is something that can be worked around ie) a hurdle. I think its a fine line but im sure the judge used that word very carefully. Lawyers what do you say?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

(IANAL)

Some would argue that as long as you can guy "some gun", the right has not been infringed. In other words, because you can still buy a bolt action, but not an AR15, the right hasn't been infringed, but only burdened.

Of course, that's a BS argument but that seems to be part of what the judge is saying here.

 

[gene]

http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79106565/

It was rigged from the word go. The whole system is corrupt and needs to go

sent from my NSA approved phone

He basically admits he has no intention of enforcing the Constitution or the BOR

 

[SpaceCritter]

(IANAL)

Some would argue that as long as you can guy "some gun", the right has not been infringed. In other words, because you can still buy a bolt action, but not an AR15, the right hasn't been infringed, but only burdened.

Of course, that's a BS argument but that seems to be part of what the judge is saying here.

Ssssssoooo... as long as you can print using an offset press, it's not infringement if you cannot lawfully use the Internet, radio, TV, ...

 

[xtry51]

Ssssssoooo... as long as you can print using an offset press, it's not infringement if you cannot lawfully use the Internet, radio, TV, ...

QFTMFT. There is no difference between this statement and what they are claiming for gun control.

 

[PaulD]

Ssssssoooo... as long as you can print using an offset press, it's not infringement if you cannot lawfully use the Internet, radio, TV, ...

Offset printer, musket, whatever it takes.

 

[Squire]

Ssssssoooo... as long as you can print using an offset press, it's not infringement if you cannot lawfully use the Internet, radio, TV, ...

Offset presses are too dangerous. Papyrus and bug guts is what the first amendment stands for.

While we are at it, you can only speak in Neanderthal. English, French, or Cro-magnon is too dangerous for our Free Society.

(Liberals head explodes now...)

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OfficerObie59]

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.

It's also worth noting that rational basis is so deferential to the government that the burden essentially shifts to the person challenging the law to prove it's unconstitutionality.

Not only that, but courts can make up ex anti reasons as to why the government MIGHT want to pass such a law. The 1950's SCOTUS case Williamson v. Lee Optical, dealing with economic liberty, is perhaps the most glaring example of the degree of deference the courts are willing to give the government.

 

[LittleCalm]

Also, the longer laws remain on the books, the more likely a court will not want to disturb them. Thus, the legislature always has the upper hand.

 

[center442]

"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?

If I'm not mistaken, that was the same reasoning that was used to allow OUI checkpoints.

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard. In the case concerning DUI checkpoints, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

IOW, as long as the government determines that the intrusion/infringement/burden is minimal we're good to go!

 

[wahsben]

They start with the semis next the pumps and lever actions, next the bolts then the double barrels until we are left only with single shots no greater than 22 and if any murders happen with those they will go to black powder arms.
Their pre-occupation is not really with arms it is with control that is why they want as many of us disarmed as possible.

What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"

Like, the guy at the D.C. Navy yard, used a pump shotgun. Was he not able to kill 12 people??

What. The. ****?

 

[wahsben]

Jefferson said in his letter to William Charles Jarvis "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

He also said:"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451