- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,831
- Likes
- 537
As Rick James said: "Can't Touch This"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0Z50FO
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0Z50FO
-
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.
Reuters: Supreme Court "May" Take Action on State Assault Weapon Bans
- Thread starter Greschner 4
- Start date
MachineHead
NES Member
Reuters: Supreme Court "May" Take Action on State Assault Weapon Bans
C'mon SCOTUS, do the right thing and slap these bitches down.
ETA: can everyone finally see the logic for "panic buying" that goes on during these times? The things we enjoy and have a right to be using are in very real danger of becoming illegal and unobtainable. Now it all depends on how much we care to keep them and giving the finger to those who don't want us to have them anymore. It's this simple.
C'mon SCOTUS, do the right thing and slap these bitches down.
ETA: can everyone finally see the logic for "panic buying" that goes on during these times? The things we enjoy and have a right to be using are in very real danger of becoming illegal and unobtainable. Now it all depends on how much we care to keep them and giving the finger to those who don't want us to have them anymore. It's this simple.
Last edited:
they will affirm all bans and eventually overturn the Heller and McDonald rulings
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317
rumor is Clarence Thomas is going to retire soon. Same with Anthony Kennedy. That's two conservative seats that Clinton gets to flip. Plus the likely retirement of Ginsberg and Breyer during the next 8 years means two fresh ultra-lib appointments.
That's a 7-2 liberal advantage for the next few decades.
TLDR: we are ****ed.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thomas-may-be-next-to-exit-supreme-court/article/2594317
rumor is Clarence Thomas is going to retire soon. Same with Anthony Kennedy. That's two conservative seats that Clinton gets to flip. Plus the likely retirement of Ginsberg and Breyer during the next 8 years means two fresh ultra-lib appointments.
That's a 7-2 liberal advantage for the next few decades.
TLDR: we are ****ed.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
Granted I am not very well versed on the topic, but can they just up and decide to repeal a previous decision? I hear this scary talk from both sides and I can't believe it is all that easy.
smokey-seven
NES Member
Can Congress over-ride a Supreme Court decision?
There is precedent that the U S Supreme Court can be overturned by legislation!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/rights-and-legislation
Crafting well worded law can and will overturn a U S Supreme Court decision. #1 you need the majority in both houses and #2 have the President on the side of the legislation and #3 support of THE PEOPLE.. you know the ones that have the rights, not the Supreme Court.
In order to have a well regulated breakfast, the right of the People to eat shall not be infringed! So does that mean that breakfast or the people have the right?
There is precedent that the U S Supreme Court can be overturned by legislation!
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/rights-and-legislation
Crafting well worded law can and will overturn a U S Supreme Court decision. #1 you need the majority in both houses and #2 have the President on the side of the legislation and #3 support of THE PEOPLE.. you know the ones that have the rights, not the Supreme Court.
In order to have a well regulated breakfast, the right of the People to eat shall not be infringed! So does that mean that breakfast or the people have the right?
inkdesigner
NES Member
Even if they take the case now, it may not help. If they render a decision before a new justice is confirmed, they would need a liberal justice to side with the conservatives and render a 5 to 3 decision in pro gun favor. A 4 to 4 decision is no good since, I believe, it would just allow the lower court ruling to stand, which is terrible if that court had ruled in a non pro gun manner
No offense, but a lot of you needed to pay better attention in civics class.
Yes, SCOTUS can reverse itself anytime it wants to. It's that easy. Though they generally choose to wait several years between cases on the same constitutional question, there's nothing that says they have to.
Yes, Congress can override SCOTUS... by passing a constitutional amendment. That's the only way Congress can tie the judiciary's hands. Anything else requires a new law that uses a different constitutional justification.
Yes, SCOTUS can reverse itself anytime it wants to. It's that easy. Though they generally choose to wait several years between cases on the same constitutional question, there's nothing that says they have to.
Yes, Congress can override SCOTUS... by passing a constitutional amendment. That's the only way Congress can tie the judiciary's hands. Anything else requires a new law that uses a different constitutional justification.
Glockster30
NES Member
]
This is why we have been screaming against HRC winning the general election. Anyone still saying they are voting for a third party candidate is just throwing your vote away, in addition to losing the 2nd amendment.
Live by the court, die by the court. It was never a good idea to let 9 lifetime appointees in robes stand in final judgment on anything.
But, here is the good news. We have gained huge ground in the past decade or two. The carry movement has made great advances. Black rifles, semi auto pistols, and standard mags have sold like crazy and especially since the AWB ended in 2004 (no help speeding that up from the Rs when they had the power to do it -- never forget that). Nothing has moved against us on the federal level for a long time, and the supremes gave us a few nice rulings. We have the momentum and the votes in all but the horrible nanny states from the mid-atlantic coast up to Mass, the west coast, and Illinois (Chicago). In most of America things are as good or better than ever.
The bad news is that future gun control is probably inevitable. The Rs have managed to find a candidate that might actually get Hillary elected. The supremes will be moving against us. But more important than this immediate problem is the longer term demographic changes in the U.S. Young people today are anti-gun, for the most part, and just about every minority group is as well. As they say, demography is destiny, and the destiny of the U.S. is to move left -- hard left. Gun rights are not going to survive that move. The only question is whether the free states will stand up to the feds, and how much they can withstand.
But, here is the good news. We have gained huge ground in the past decade or two. The carry movement has made great advances. Black rifles, semi auto pistols, and standard mags have sold like crazy and especially since the AWB ended in 2004 (no help speeding that up from the Rs when they had the power to do it -- never forget that). Nothing has moved against us on the federal level for a long time, and the supremes gave us a few nice rulings. We have the momentum and the votes in all but the horrible nanny states from the mid-atlantic coast up to Mass, the west coast, and Illinois (Chicago). In most of America things are as good or better than ever.
The bad news is that future gun control is probably inevitable. The Rs have managed to find a candidate that might actually get Hillary elected. The supremes will be moving against us. But more important than this immediate problem is the longer term demographic changes in the U.S. Young people today are anti-gun, for the most part, and just about every minority group is as well. As they say, demography is destiny, and the destiny of the U.S. is to move left -- hard left. Gun rights are not going to survive that move. The only question is whether the free states will stand up to the feds, and how much they can withstand.
Young people are exiting "free" states in droves. The economic opportunities just aren't there for them any more, especially if they have a bachelor's degree or better. That's mostly limited to a handful of high-cost-of-living cities in "Peoples' Republic" type states like CA, NY, and MA.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
Why is this?
They cannot 'repeal' a previous decision. However, they can reverse themselves IF another case comes up that gives them the opportunity to rule differently on the same issue. That said, they are very unlikely to reverse themselves outright in the way that Brown was an out-and-out reversal of Plessey. The doctrine of stare decisis is nearly absolute and justices are very reluctant to overturn Supreme Court precedent even if they disagree with it. Think about it. If there was no such thing as 'settled law' in the eyes of the justices, the court would continually be inundated by the same cases over and over again.
What you're more likely to see is the effective chipping away at Heller. The court will take cases upholding laws that regulate or limit access to the right and which fall short or the kinds of outright bans found in DC and Chicago. They'll employ the '2A two step' finding that such laws do implicate the Second Amendment, but survive what's supposedly heightened scrutiny, but is in fact rational basis. The would uphold Heller, but essentially make the Second Amendment a second-class right.
That's one view. Adam Winkler has a different view in Why the Supreme Court Won't Impact Gun Rights.
I don't disagree with Winkler and have for sometime drawn a parallel to abortion. I think that the Second Amendment, like abortion, will largely be uncontroversial and accessible in most of the country with a small number of localities constantly trying to limit it. With abortion states like Texas and Oklahoma continue to try to limit access. With the Second Amendment it will be California, New York and a few others. And it will go on like that for another generation.
It takes more than Congress to amend the Constitution. Three quarters of all state legislatures are also required to ratify an amendment.
Mostly, businesses like to situate themselves where there's a ready supply of graduates from first-tier universities like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford.
The "forty years and a gold watch" career model doesn't work any more, either. If you want a raise or a promotion these days, your best bet is to switch employers. Companies also lay off people at the first sign of a "down" quarter--and the ones with the best records and best accomplishments aren't always the ones that are kept on, because often, they're also the most highly-paid. So you need to live somewhere where there's a healthy variety of employers and industries to work in so you can change jobs readily.
The thing that may save the "free states" is a combination of younger generations getting fed up with the cost of living in places like San Francisco and Boston, coupled with working from home being a more normal thing, so that you can work for a company in Boston while living in, say, Montana.
I personally would like to strike a compromise and find work somewhere down South that's still got some tech going on like Raleigh-Durham or Charlotte or Atlanta, while I work out what to do in semi-retirement in about a decade and a half. (I'm 50 now.)
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,916
- Likes
- 23,496
I was hoping you would drop some knowledge in this thread.
First, if you think anywhere in the former Confederacy is "free", then you haven't looked at carry permits or taxes or history. Look at getting a New Hampshire carry permit versus a Georgia permit. Or Vermont constitutional carry versus Georgia. Then look at taxes. Never mind the history - I'd rather have Calvin Coolidge as president than LBJ.
Second, most if not all of the Sunbelt states have tremendous population growth. The South has some very nice post-secondary institutions like the University of Virginia, Vanderbilt, Miami and UF, not to mention places in Louisiana or Texas. Florida's population has increased by a factor of 20 since 1920. Massachusetts hasn't even doubled yet. This growth can't be sustained without younger people. Look at average salaries of higher-education required careers like lawyers in certain states; you can make more in Virginia and Georgia on average as a lawyer than you will in Maine.
Third, every state has a network of state universities that train and educate enough people to sustain the state's economy. It's nonsensical to take a Harvard graduate and drop him into Montana or Wyoming or Nebraska or South Dakota. It costs over $50,000 per year to go to Harvard Law School and the average salary of a lawyer in Montana is less than $100,000.
Each region of the country has its own network of high-ranking universities. BYU covers the Mountain West. Stanford covers the Left Coast. Michigan for the Midwest. New England has plenty of options. NYU, Penn, Princeton and Georgetown for the Mid Atlantic. The South has William and Mary, Virginia, etc.
With the continued trend towards the left, it seems that more strict gun control is inevitable. The question is, what direction will these controls take? Sales restrictions? Taxes? Magazine or firearm design restrictions? Outright confiscation? These are scary times for legal firearms owners. There's no doubt things are going to get complicated. We stand at a junction in history that could potentially change society as we know it. And it goes beyond gun control. I am fearful.
Chris
Chris
Google: electoral college. Your vote means more in MA for a 3rd party than for trump.
The reason HRC is the next president is simple. The egos of the 14 some odd candidates allowed the party to nominate Trump. If the idiots who had no shot united behind a candidate that could beat clinton, it wouldnt be ideal for many here, but HRC wouldnt be poised to trounce Trump in a general election.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the outcome of the election.
But...
In order for a third party candidate to do any damage to the Dems, they need to attract left wing voters. They need to be someone from the left, like say Bernie. Last year, I was originally expecting the Republicans to not nominate Trump de facto and he would then go 3rd Party and would split the right wing vote like 40/10 or 30/20. Trump would attract the less socially conservative votes and someone else like say Ted Cruz would attract the social conservatives/Southerners.
Anyone who believes that a 3rd party vote will be a magic bullet is not aware of how small the 3rd party vote is in this country and the effects of voting 3rd party. I'm not going to sit here and tell grown adults how to vote, but I will tell you to do more research into both American voting patterns and how multi-party governments work in Europe or other places.
It wont change the election, but it will get some important points discussed, and taking the long view it may have implications down the road. In that sense it does "more" than voting for trump in MA. This state isnt remotely purple.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
From what I've seen in New Hampshire, that won't happen either.
I'm going to assume you're talking about Gary Johnson and William Weld as the 3rd Party option, which would be the Libertarian Party. The left absolutely hates libertarianism. The Dems in NH have effectively labeled libertarians as the primary enemy of the state of New Hampshire, probably because the end result of a successful Free State Project would mean an end to 50/50 politics in NH.
Libertarians and New Hampshire work together because NH has a native population of conservatives and a population of conservatives from elsewhere like Mass or CT or RI. NH is the only state in New England with good growth in terms of economy and population because its low tax and has the most balanced political scene. The average person in New Hampshire might not like the in-your-face methods of some Free Staters, but at the end of the day, I can only name a very small handful of libertarians that don't fit into their communities.
The culture of Mass isn't open to libertarianism. Mass has always been a bunch of NIMBYs and reactionaries or "you can't do that here!" people. Conservatives or liberals.
You'd be better off getting a small group of people together and running them as libertarians for seats in the General Court. That's what Free Staters in New Hampshire do and that's how they use the mic. The only national 3rd Party candidate up here that got any attention during the primaries was Vermin Supreme and he's... well... himself. I didn't get one email about Gary Johnson coming to my town or county or the general area I'm in. Not a peep.
Not sure where you've lived, but there's plenty of money to be made in the south. You don't need 200k to live like a king, so while the pay may be lower, the standard of living is higher.
Frankly, no. I think if they reverse Heller, it'll be done decades from now; that's the SCOTUS MO. But they'll decide other gun cases in the meantime, and not necessarily well.
But "could" they reverse this year? Sure. There are some folks in this thread who don't know how SCOTUS works, is all.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Glockster30
NES Member
There's no disagreement with your assessment, however, if HRC is elected, we are going to see a new brand of activist jurists nominated for SCOTUS. As indicated, they may not be able to repeal, but they can reverse their decisions. Whether it is done by reversing decisions or "chipping away at Heller" the end result will be the same, and it's something I don't think that bodes well for us.
In addition, it will make states like MA et al even bolder in enacting more onerous gun laws than we have now, in addition to taxing us to death on gun issues.
Last edited:
Given the current complexion of the court, is this a bad thing? On the other hand, it could get much worse in the next couple years.
