National Reciprocity??

[devldog131]

I'm just looking forward to the GOAL challenge to the MA AWB reaching the SCOTUS after Kavanaugh's confirmation (which I am still convinced is going to happen). Kavanaugh has already stated in published opinion that "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. When (yes, when) SCOTUS strikes down the MA AWB, say goodbye to magazine restrictions, feature tests, enumerated firearms, and the 7/20 executive fiat.

 

[M1911]

It is a distinct possibility that we also get a 2A-friendly replacement for RBG before 2024.

I doubt that will happen. I expect the Democrats to win a majority in the Senate in the midterms, and then block all SCOTUS appointments as payback for Garland.

 

[daekken]

I second the motion that Kavanaugh WILL get in before the midterms. Aside from the fact Flake has already said that he'll vote to confirm, don't forget that there are 3 red-state dem senators - McCaskill, Heitkamp and Manchin - in extremely tight re-election battles that would be committing political suicide if they voted against confirmation in a full-senate vote. So even if all three of the other squishy RINOs (Collins, Murkowski and Corker) vote no, I think they're now off-set by the red state dems.

The same Flake that just flip-flopped and called for an FBI investigation after some women yelled at him in an elevator? That whole episode doesn't inspire confidence. Once people read "if we yell and make them uncomfortable, they'll wilt like rose petals" it's not going to get any easier.

If Kavanaugh doesn't get in by midterms, I don't think he'll get in without some sort of hijinks/backroom type dealing. Trump's got an approval rating generally reported as somewhere in the 30s...I certainly don't see re-election as a slam dunk. I've never seen the left so energized. It feels like a lose-lose -- if Kavanaugh doesn't get in before the midterms, he never will. IF he gets in, it's going to hyper activate the left (they'll tout "shady dealings to appoint a sexual predator despite everyone's misgivings") and crush the right in midterms. At least in the first scenario, Kavanaugh is in there...some consolation to losing the congress and the 2020 election, I guess.

 

[Noreaster]

I'm just looking forward to the GOAL challenge to the MA AWB reaching the SCOTUS after Kavanaugh's confirmation (which I am still convinced is going to happen). Kavanaugh has already stated in published opinion that "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. When (yes, when) SCOTUS strikes down the MA AWB, say goodbye to magazine restrictions, feature tests, enumerated firearms, and the 7/20 executive fiat.

Reality check.
It takes years for a case to get to the SCOTUS. To get there, there are many lower courts that the case needs to be heard.
If the case is ever on a path where it looks like it will get even close to the SCOTUS, the AGs office will do a gut check. If they have any doubt that they will not succeed, they will alter the notice. They may loose some of the expansive scope, but they will also alter it enough to make the case null and it cannot continue.
The win at that case needs to be at the lower courts as it will never get as high as SCOTUS.

 

[Glockster30]

I second the motion that Kavanaugh WILL get in before the midterms. Aside from the fact Flake has already said that he'll vote to confirm, don't forget that there are 3 red-state dem senators - McCaskill, Heitkamp and Manchin - in extremely tight re-election battles that would be committing political suicide if they voted against confirmation in a full-senate vote. So even if all three of the other squishy RINOs (Collins, Murkowski and Corker) vote no, I think they're now off-set by the red state dems.

If this were true wrt the red state Dems, McConnell would be holding a full Senate vote next Tuesday.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

If this were true wrt the red state Dems, McConnell would be holding a full Senate vote next Tuesday.

I bet he still does.

 

[Glockster30]

Not sure how that can happen since the R's caved and gave the FBI investigation another week before taking an up/down vote.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Not sure how that can happen since the R's caved and gave the FBI investigation another week before taking an up/down vote.

*up to a week. Do you really think it will take a team of FBI agents more then 4 hours to shrug their shoulders tell the Senate to stop wasting their time?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

 

[Glockster30]

The FBI doesn't like Trump, so who knows how long it will take. There's already dissension as the D's thought they had a week, but Trump said up to a week. I hope that you're right that it will take 4 hours, but that's assuming they can find Ford next week, which is a big assumption. Then the D's will scream about the FBI investigation not being wide enough in scope, in addition to the fact that what if the FBI finds something? If nothing happens there, the D's will scream that they need more time to review the scant FBI findings. Too many ifs to know how it's going to play out.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

All of those what ifs don't really matter because there was no guarantee they authorize an FBI investigation. "gentlemens agreement", McConnell can tell everyone to pound sand, abd by the looks of that video I linked a post ago, it seems he is doing just that.

 

[Glockster30]

Ed, after writing my post, look at what I just found. They're already bitching and the issue is only a few hours old.

Debra Katz, a lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, said on Friday that "artificial limits" should not be placed on the FBI as it reopens its background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation," Katz said in a statement.

She added that letting the FBI do a "thorough" investigation is "critical to developing all the relevant facts."

Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser: FBI probe should not have 'artificial' limits

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Which is likely why McConnell said f*** it.

 

[Varmint]

*up to a week. Do you really think it will take a team of FBI agents more then 4 hours to shrug their shoulders tell the Senate to stop wasting their time?

You mean a team of Democratic activist FBI agents? It’ll take as long as necessary.

Even if they’re legit agents, how do you investigate when there’s no witnesses, no date, no location, and the number of perps changes every time she speaks?

 

[Glockster30]

All McConnell said in the video is that he had 51 votes to proceed to a confirmation vote. This doesn't mean he has 51 votes to confirm Kav.

 

[looser38]

There's nothing to be "downer" about, it's being realistic. The odds of any member of NES winning the powerball are far greater than USSC ever issuing an expansive decision like that.

The supreme court doesn't often issue something that far reaching, most of the rulings are designed to be pin prick narrow. There isn't really a foreseeable scenario where they just get to invalidate that
wholesale. Even with Heller being a big deal, the "reasonable restrictions" BS was still left around like a dog's smelly tennis ball. They're not going to gut the states' power.

The only way this will ever happen is if there's a violent revolution in this country and force is used to strip the power away from the states or the feds for that matter.

-Mike

There's nothing to be "downer" about, it's being realistic. The odds of any member of NES winning the powerball are far greater than USSC ever issuing an expansive decision like that.

The supreme court doesn't often issue something that far reaching, most of the rulings are designed to be pin prick narrow. There isn't really a foreseeable scenario where they just get to invalidate that
wholesale. Even with Heller being a big deal, the "reasonable restrictions" BS was still left around like a dog's smelly tennis ball. They're not going to gut the states' power.

The only way this will ever happen is if there's a violent revolution in this country and force is used to strip the power away from the states or the feds for that matter.

-Mike

Caps lock is on.

Thanks, I know, habit of mine from time to time.

 

[42!]

I'm just looking forward to the GOAL challenge to the MA AWB reaching the SCOTUS after Kavanaugh's confirmation (which I am still convinced is going to happen). Kavanaugh has already stated in published opinion that "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. When (yes, when) SCOTUS strikes down the MA AWB, say goodbye to magazine restrictions, feature tests, enumerated firearms, and the 7/20 executive fiat.

GOAL won't be taking anything to SCOTUS, Comm2a maybe but not GOAL.......

 

[AHM]

Lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser: FBI probe should not have 'artificial' limits

Here's what I say:

Make the FBI interview everyone involved.

Then start handing out perjury trap indictments like fortune cookies for every cough and botched verb tense in the interviews.

ETA: Hint that there might be pardons for anyone who dimes out the Senate staffers that suborned perjured Senate testimony from them.

Punch back twice as hard.


And note that Sleepy Jeff isn't recused from this,
so getting this done is his last chance to still be employed at Thanksgiving.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Let's just put it this way- If there was a place I can place bets on it I would. I'd bet against it for $1000 a year and it would be the easiest money I ever made. That's how certain I am that your assertion is bogus. It's that reliably bad. The probability is somewhere between pigs taking off from logan airport and maura healey suddenly becoming pro gun.
-Mike

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

There will NEVER be national reciprocity by legislation. There could conceivably be a SCOTUS decision which would provide for it but don't hold your breath.

A federal law forcing reciprocity would conflict with the states authority to reasonably regulate the 2A. The states will use that authority to endrun reciprocity. If the SCOTUS were to rule that any regulation on the "right to bear" is "infringement" we would be in business. That isn't going to happen. Government doesn't go backwards towards individual freedom. They progress to totalitarianism and thence to revolution.

 

[pastera]

I'm just looking forward to the GOAL challenge to the MA AWB reaching the SCOTUS after Kavanaugh's confirmation (which I am still convinced is going to happen). Kavanaugh has already stated in published opinion that "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional. When (yes, when) SCOTUS strikes down the MA AWB, say goodbye to magazine restrictions, feature tests, enumerated firearms, and the 7/20 executive fiat.

The problem is you need to get them to take the case and that is the big issue. If a case comes through that upsets the apple cart the simply don't grant cert.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

We'll certainly see, but no need to be a debbie downer.



Recognition won't matter when this happens. Federal law is supreme.

many people confuse "realism" as "debbie downer-ism"

 

[Varmint]

The problem is you need to get them to take the case and that is the big issue. If a case comes through that upsets the apple cart the simply don't grant cert.

If we have s majority it would.

 

[crispnipz]

There will NEVER be national reciprocity by legislation. There could conceivably be a SCOTUS decision which would provide for it but don't hold your breath.

A federal law forcing reciprocity would conflict with the states authority to reasonably regulate the 2A. The states will use that authority to endrun reciprocity. If the SCOTUS were to rule that any regulation on the "right to bear" is "infringement" we would be in business. That isn't going to happen. Government doesn't go backwards towards individual freedom. They progress to totalitarianism and thence to revolution.

Not disagreeing with you about it being more likely to come from SCOTUS, but wondering where "states about to reasonably regulate the 2A" comes from? Do you think states reasonably regulate 1A in a similar manner? I feel "reasonable" is inherently subjective yet laws try to make it objective. What is "reasonable" to a Dim may be tyrannical to us.

many people confuse "realism" as "debbie downer-ism"

Yes, and maybe I shouldn't have said that. But like I said, I'm optimistic. I wasn't a member here prior to the 2016 election but in my circles, very few people thought Trump could win. I was optimistic about it. And hey, national reciprocity has already passed the House. So I feel we're actually a lot closer than a lot of people think.

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

Not disagreeing with you about it being more likely to come from SCOTUS, but wondering where "states about to reasonably regulate the 2A" comes from? Do you think states reasonably regulate 1A in a similar manner? I feel "reasonable" is inherently subjective yet laws try to make it objective. What is "reasonable" to a Dim may be tyrannical to us.
... think.

No I don't believe the states should be able to touch an enumerated right given by our creator but there is a well recognized principle that the states have the authority to enact regulations concerning the administration of constitutional rights. Think of the laws surrounding voting for instance. Sometime ago in my lifetime some of the states had a "poll tax" which was a method to prevent "undesireables" from voting. The SCOTUS tossed out as constitutionally prohibited. Various states had other such voting requirements and the court has historically held the licensing firearms schemes and permits and things like the Sullivan Act all fall within the reasonable authority of the states to regulate and administer.

The SCOTUS could decide such regulation constitutes infringement and toss it all out leaving us with "constitutional carry".

 

[Sparky123]

I thought this was a dead issue.

 

[omega42]

I thought this was a dead issue.

Until the R's grow a pair large enough to tell the D's and their media allies to pound sand it will not die.

 

[Sparky123]

Until the R's grow a pair large enough to tell the D's and their media allies to pound sand it will not die.

I'm sure the democrats have forgotten all about it by now.