REPEAL OF ALL STATE-LEVEL MAGAZINE AND GUN BANS in the first 100 days.

[Glockster30]

Repost: This is why the past election was so important. Justice Alito sees the "loopholes" in Heller and appears to want to correct them with a conservative SCOTUS.




Justice Samuel Alito outlined the possible agenda for a conservative SCOTUS that includes gun rights and freedom of speech, so maybe something will happen sooner than later.


In reference to gun rights, Alito mentioned Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court found an individual right to bear arms for self defense. Breyer's dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a "roadmap" to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/alito-out...185021438.html

 

[M1911]

Of course it does, there is no doubt about it. The state has no right to limit what people can buy period ! They do it all time, I know. What limits? What types of limits? Courts are wrong again ! Tap dance around it all you want. At the end of the day, the FACT remains it is an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights.

You and I may think that, but what you and I think about this issue frankly doesn't matter in a court of law.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this. The most recent rulings on Maura Healey's actions have been in federal appeals court and she won. There is little that Trump can or will do unless SCOTUS rules her actions were unconstitutional.

And since her actions have not been appealed to SCOTUS, the result is that NOTHING WILL HAPPEN SOON. Reread KuckleDragger's post: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulle...rst-100-days?p=5298832&viewfull=1#post5298832

The idea that Trump can unilaterally repeal all the state laws that we believe infringe upon the 2nd Amendment is, frankly, laughable. The President doesn't have that power.

 

[GM-GUY]

In regards to the OP - Trump could have his AG issue a statement that, in light of the 2nd Amendment, all state level bans are unconstitutional and should be revoked. Same as Healy governing by FAQ - just more fun.

and NO, I don't think because they did it first is a good reason - either we are a nation of laws or we aren't.

 

[M1911]

In regards to the OP - Trump could have his AG issue a statement that, in light of the 2nd Amendment, all state level bans are unconstitutional and should be revoked. Same as Healy governing by FAQ - just more fun.

and NO, I don't think because they did it first is a good reason - either we are a nation of laws or we aren't.

Such a statement wouldn't be binding on anything. It would cause controversy, but have no legal impact.

To further amplify my post above, Trump hasn't been sworn in. He hasn't nominated someone to the vacant position on SCOTUS. That nominee hasn't been approved by the Senate.

As a result, SCOTUS is still 4 to 4 on gun control. While we think the AG's actions are unconstitutional, there are four learned justices on SCOTUS that would most likely support her if her actions came before SCOTUS.

But her actions aren't before SCOTUS and it will likely be some time before any of her actions could be appealed to SCOTUS.

All of which is a long way of saying that nothing is going to change quickly for us in MA. That isn't being "negative". That is simply the reality of our political and judicial systems.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Why do you assume that's outside the realm of possibility? There's honestly nothing stopping them from drafting a law like that. Enforcement and legality in the courts is another story.

Supremacy Clause?

Yep. Because MA already has a tiered gun possession/carrying system. So you just say hey, in order to be in possession of a gun in MA, you need to complete course X. So sure, reciprocity laws means MA has to accept a CCP from another state with regards to laws specifically about carrying a concealed firearm, but they could add annoying restrictions for physical possession of a gun, magazines, or ammo, or whatever.

But they can't restrict non-residents any worse than residents. THAT'S the point.

Anyone thinking this is going to eradicate all sorts of other rules are delusional. It will make your LTC reciprocous. that alone is a huge deal. No more Utah lic. No more FL lic. No more NH or RI lic. Just your MA. (I wonder what VT and others will do.)

The mag limits and such are restrictions that will need to be addressed by the USSC. Here's hoping Ginsberg decides to step down soon.

 

[RG617]

On a less contentious, positive note, I think we we will almost certainly see the M-1's Korea was looking to move making their way to the CMP.

 

[M1911]

On a less contentious, positive note, I think we we will almost certainly see the M-1's Korea was looking to move making their way to the CMP.

Agreed -- I believe those issues are controlled solely by the Executive Branch, so they are within the President's power to change.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You and I may think that, but what you and I think about this issue frankly doesn't matter in a court of law.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this. The most recent rulings on Maura Healey's actions have been in federal appeals court and she won. There is little that Trump can or will do unless SCOTUS rules her actions were unconstitutional.

And since her actions have not been appealed to SCOTUS, the result is that NOTHING WILL HAPPEN SOON. Reread KuckleDragger's post: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulle...rst-100-days?p=5298832&viewfull=1#post5298832

The idea that Trump can unilaterally repeal all the state laws that we believe infringe upon the 2nd Amendment is, frankly, laughable. The President doesn't have that power.

It must be hard for you to accept that this is a true fact/statement, regardless of what black robed men decide.
FACT: it is an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

It must be hard for you to accept that this is a true fact/statement, regardless of what black robed men decide.
FACT: it is an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights.

Then get busy living that way and do something about it.

 

[gunofthrones]

Good luck getting ****ing New York steak on board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[M1911]

It must be hard for you to accept that this is a true fact/statement, regardless of what black robed men decide.
FACT: it is an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights.

You misunderstand me.

I agree with you.

But because this hasn't been adjudicated by the courts, those laws and regulations are still in effect. And if it does go to SCOTUS, there is no guarantee that they will agree with us.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You misunderstand me.

I agree with you.

But because this hasn't been adjudicated by the courts, those laws and regulations are still in effect. And if it does go to SCOTUS, there is no guarantee that they will agree with us.

OK, fair enough.

 

[drgrant]

Good luck getting ****ing New York steak on board.

That sounds delicious, though.

-Mike

 

[E.Stoner]

I clicked on some adds from that very-reputable-news-site and placed an order for some magic beans (not the blue ones!).
Can't wait!

 

[nstassel]

I have a really nice beachfront home in Arizona that I can't use anymore. I'll sell it to you on the cheap. Let me know if interested.

pm sent!

 

[bmac10]

Maybe I am getting cynical, but I can't help laughing when I read something about government helping us out or removing unreasonable laws or limits.

 

[Bonesinium]

Maybe I am getting cynical, but I can't help laughing when I read something about government helping us out or removing unreasonable laws or limits.

I wouldn't say that's exactly cynical, though you could probably say that about the government.

 

[Dadstoys]

Maybe I am getting cynical, but I can't help laughing when I read something about government helping us out or removing unreasonable laws or limits.

Normally I would agree, but Trump is a total wildcard.
I really do think keeping his promises is going to be a point of pride with him and he doesn't give a crap about politcal fallout.
He' s not a career politican and sure as hell isn't going to be getting by on speaking engagements after.
Call it ego or whatever, but him being able to say he got what he said he would get done will matter more to him than anything else IMHO

 

[M1911]

Normally I would agree, but Trump is a total wildcard.
I really do think keeping his promises is going to be a point of pride with him and he doesn't give a crap about politcal fallout.
He' s not a career politican and sure as hell isn't going to be getting by on speaking engagements after.
Call it ego or whatever, but him being able to say he got what he said he would get done will matter more to him than anything else IMHO

He may want to do a lot of things. But the Constitution limits the powers of the President.

 

[Evadd]

Normally I would agree, but Trump is a total wildcard.
I really do think keeping his promises is going to be a point of pride with him and he doesn't give a crap about politcal fallout.
He' s not a career politican and sure as hell isn't going to be getting by on speaking engagements after.
Call it ego or whatever, but him being able to say he got what he said he would get done will matter more to him than anything else IMHO

I don't believe that for one second. You're right that he doesn't care about political fallout - he cares about the Trump brand. He has so much money tied up in his businesses that he will do whatever is best for his money. This is to an extent, of course, but I have no doubt he will wave in the wind if it benefits him.

 

[Individualist]

Trump wants to be seen as a winner. I think he is doing and will do whatever it takes to make allies, make deals and get a bunch of stuff done in a short period of time. I doubt he will want to go through the campaign process again. He will claim age, health or some reason for not going for a second term. He won the presidency, he will go out on top having done what he said, and let Pence take the reins. I think that is part of the deal he's making with the GOP. Help me and I'll hand it over to you wrapped up with a bow.

 

[ScottS]

You mean like that law that says you can't drive a car in MA that's not insured?

Originally Posted by ScottS
Right, but unless you can point out the "magazine ban" article in the Constitution, and absent some SCOTUS ruling that specifically says "magazine bans are unconstitutional," then the power to ban magazines is a power not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, and therefore one reserved to the States. Whether or not we think magazine bans are an unconstitutional infringement is irrelevant.

Can you read? Are you having trouble with "shall not be infringed"? The second amendment clearly defines gun rights. The tenth can't touch them. Why don't you go back and read them both again until the sheer absurdity of what you just said sinks in.

Well, yeah, I can read (my lips move, but I get by), but who says magazine limits violate "shall not be infringed?" You? I mean, you might be a nice guy and all (despite the dick tone of your response), but your opinion just doesn't count. (Most of) SCOTUS can read, too, and until they rule that magazine limits violate the 2nd, your argument just doesn't hold up. They haven't done that, and unless and until they do, the President can't just waive his hands and force the States to acquiesce.

But, if you get a chance, you can drop them a note with your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Dadstoys]

He may want to do a lot of things. But the Constitution limits the powers of the President.

If he was looking at a Democrat controlled senate then I would say he'd be peeing up a rope for four years.
But he's got both houses so I can see a fair part of stuff getting done , but certainly not all.
If we get some solid 2A protections, a couple of decent supreme court appointments and the 300 thousand or so rapeugees that were lined up at the gate don't make it in , I'll consider it a victory.
It beats what we were looking at if she got in by miles.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe that for one second. You're right that he doesn't care about political fallout - he cares about the Trump brand. He has so much money tied up in his businesses that he will do whatever is best for his money. This is to an extent, of course, but I have no doubt he will wave in the wind if it benefits him.

Why so pessimistic ?
It's the best shot the good guys have had in a very long time.

 

[NHKevin]

Normally I would agree, but Trump is a total wildcard.
I really do think keeping his promises is going to be a point of pride with him and he doesn't give a crap about politcal fallout.
He' s not a career politican and sure as hell isn't going to be getting by on speaking engagements after.
Call it ego or whatever, but him being able to say he got what he said he would get done will matter more to him than anything else IMHO

Keeping promises? He has already backed out on several big ones!!

 

[Dadstoys]

Keeping promises? He has already backed out on several big ones!!

Damn , was he sworn in while I wasn't paying attention?
Remind me of this in six months and I'll admit to being wrong if I am.
Barry still has the keys to the front door for a couple of months.
I'd want to keep him guessing too if I was Trump.
He's already trying to push through a bunch of crap to make it hard for Trump.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Reciprocity without an end to gun, magazine, and ammo bans can could land me a 30 year stay in MA if I passed through with my range bag. Every pistol I own is an illegal high capacity firearm except my Shield 40 by MA definitions. Only my Shield mags ate less than 10 rounds.
And passing through NJ with normal defensive ammo? Screwed. A single Spent empty she'll in DC? Double screwed.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

tell me, what pistols do you own that you think are illegal here. Go on, I'll wait....

 

[fishgutzy]

tell me, what pistols do you own that you think are illegal here. Go on, I'll wait....

all but my Shield are illegal high capacity handguns under MA law. I have standard magazines for all of them.
FNX45 15 round x3
FNS9 17 round x5
FNS9C 12 round x2
VP40 13 round x3
2.5 x 13 years just me the magazines for consecutive sentencing. [emoji33]
Correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[bostonasphalt2]

all but my Shield are illegal high capacity handguns under MA law. I have standard magazines for all of them.
FNX45 15 round x3
FNS9 17 round x5
FNS9C 12 round x2
VP40 13 round x3
2.5 x 13 years just me the magazines for consecutive sentencing. [emoji33]
Correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Your handguns aren't illegal. Only the magazines. There is a very distinct difference.

 

[DW357]

Your handguns aren't illegal. Only the magazines. There is a very distinct difference.

Yup.

 

[fishgutzy]

Your handguns aren't illegal. Only the magazines. There is a very distinct difference.

Without an MA unrestricted permit they are.
More than a few out of state people have been charged with having am illegal high capacity firearm, defined as a firearm that can accept a magazine greater than 10 rounds. Could be a pile on charge.

Side note I have read that NY ignores the federal law protecting lawful transport through the state. All "someone knows someone who knows someone. " So it could be hype but given how corrupt NY is it would surprise me if it was true.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk