pastera
NES Member
Yes, we are in violent agreement
-
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.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Last edited:
Not that it matters, but I do donate regularly to the Second Amendment Foundation.
As for the rest of your post not sure what you're getting at.
pastera
NES Member
That covers your money (treasure)
Talent: Do you offer to teach people without any firearms knowledge or experience? Or answer technical questions here?
Time: This is what I was getting to - spend a couple of hours to understand the legal arguments so that when you speak about firearm's law you can present a cogent argument.
I ask you, and specifically you a lot of questions about 2A legal stuff. Why? because you know your 2A legal stuff. I don't. Which is why I ask. Why do I ask? Because I want to learn. When you link me material I read it. I certainly don't understand a lot of it due to the nonsense legalease, however, I do make the attempt. Take the case that this threads about. I was wrong. You were right. And you put me on the right track as you have the toolset to effectively communicate it.
And what do you do? You gatekeep me. A guy who asks YOU questions so I can improve myself.
Jesus Christ
MaverickNH
NES Member
Drench has been “Scriv’d” as we would have said years ago… lawyerly smackdown.
If we have to lead horses to water again and again, it’s enough they continue to drink to suit our purposes. Patience…
pastera
NES Member
Understand - that's why I stated "Not to you directly"
I started reading into the laws and cases about a decade ago with no understanding of legal pleadings - I'm still not a scholar but I probably have several hundred hours of self directed study.
My point is that I believe most people don't understand the arguments presented simply because they don't know know a pleading is constructed by using previous cases to present a position.
Once that is understood, reading the documents around a case become much easier to understand and apply to other situations
Ever think that people who aren't as smart as you like to lean on you for your opinion? That's where I'd say I fall into.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,149
- Likes
- 33,087
F that. If that's the case, I'm getting a Howitzer. Maybe a civil war era mortar as well for good measure. If you're gonna go down swinging, go for the roundhouse.
Remeber what he actually said:
I say this is ridiculous because .gov restricts *LOTS* of things that aren't even remotely related to the 2nd amendment.
and in fact, inclusion of something as a weapon (firearm, especially) is the only reason any of us can cry, "but 2A!!" when .gov wants to restrict it.
For instance: lead paint. Is the manufacturer and use of lead paint restricted by the government? YES!
Is lead paint anywhere near the 2nd amendment? Nope.
Same is true for food and baby furniture and houses (remember the building code?) and cars and medicine and employment. Not all are *taxed* (although one might argue a building permit is essentially a tax, and required professional licensing sure smells like a tax, or at least an infringement.)
So the assertion that "inclusion under 2a is the only thing that allows something to be restricted" is facially false.
Swap out "regulated" or "taxed" for "restricted" if you like, in this context they're essentially equivalent.
OK, so I'm going to have to generalize a bit, too many posts to quote.
@pastera seems to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that suppressors are under 2a because past legislation and case law says so. Well I started with the pretense that this was the problem. That it is a "just because" loop without any logical step by step process that makes them an arm (covered under 2a).
As for them not being an arm but covered under 2a, whatever, I'm pretty much using them interchangeably. If it makes a difference to you, my use of arm means covered under 2a, and my use of 2a means an arm.
For those that say the gov can regulate anything. Not entirely correct. Without a law allowing them to regulate something NO they can not. The ATF cannot just start regulating trucks because they don't like them. And if they claim they are a weapon (an arm) then they would fall under 2a and that would limit what they can do.
The gov certainly can try to pass a new laws giving them the ability to regulate anything. And they do it all the time. But there always has to be at least a pretense as to why. Chemnicals and other things that are not arms/weapons are usually argued to be dangerous, and this would not make them covered under 2a. But if suppressors were not arms, what would the gov claim is the reason to regulate them? If they say they enhance the use of a firearm, BINGO they now fall under 2a. They need to find a reason that has nothing to do with their use on a gun.
So tell me, what is the reason the gov NEEDS to regulate suppressors that is NOT because they enhance the use of a firearm. And that NFA says so is not proof, it was passed on the idea that gangsters or assassins would use them to make guns silent, at a time when real data was both more difficult to get and the myth was hard to disprove. Today we have piles of verifiable data that says they are not used in crimes to any significant degree, and the affect they have can be clearly demonstrated.
As for those that say the law is what it is so none of this matters. Well of courser the law is what it is, I'm not saying otherwise. The whole point of this is the laws are wrong. Not the interpretation or enforcement of the laws, but the laws themselves. And I'm asking for a logical reason why they are right/ Something that stands on it's own and doesn't rely om some other opinion or unsupported law.
@pastera seems to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that suppressors are under 2a because past legislation and case law says so. Well I started with the pretense that this was the problem. That it is a "just because" loop without any logical step by step process that makes them an arm (covered under 2a).
As for them not being an arm but covered under 2a, whatever, I'm pretty much using them interchangeably. If it makes a difference to you, my use of arm means covered under 2a, and my use of 2a means an arm.
For those that say the gov can regulate anything. Not entirely correct. Without a law allowing them to regulate something NO they can not. The ATF cannot just start regulating trucks because they don't like them. And if they claim they are a weapon (an arm) then they would fall under 2a and that would limit what they can do.
The gov certainly can try to pass a new laws giving them the ability to regulate anything. And they do it all the time. But there always has to be at least a pretense as to why. Chemnicals and other things that are not arms/weapons are usually argued to be dangerous, and this would not make them covered under 2a. But if suppressors were not arms, what would the gov claim is the reason to regulate them? If they say they enhance the use of a firearm, BINGO they now fall under 2a. They need to find a reason that has nothing to do with their use on a gun.
So tell me, what is the reason the gov NEEDS to regulate suppressors that is NOT because they enhance the use of a firearm. And that NFA says so is not proof, it was passed on the idea that gangsters or assassins would use them to make guns silent, at a time when real data was both more difficult to get and the myth was hard to disprove. Today we have piles of verifiable data that says they are not used in crimes to any significant degree, and the affect they have can be clearly demonstrated.
As for those that say the law is what it is so none of this matters. Well of courser the law is what it is, I'm not saying otherwise. The whole point of this is the laws are wrong. Not the interpretation or enforcement of the laws, but the laws themselves. And I'm asking for a logical reason why they are right/ Something that stands on it's own and doesn't rely om some other opinion or unsupported law.
Wasn't there something about rubber bands being a machine gun? What about pistol braces? I don't follow the ins and outs of either of those, but recall seeing something about those here somewhere on NES.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Bruen, Private Property & the Second Amendment
firearmslaw.duke.edu
Amazing logic - the State sets as default you cannot exercise your rights (by deciding whether you wish to prohibit or allow firearms on your propertY) and all you have to do is positively assert, by posting in writing, your intention to exercise your rights (requiring you to post your permission).
“Finally addressing the elephant in the room, the court observed that New York pointed out that private property owners have always been able to exclude guns. Yes, said the court, “ut that right has always been one belonging to the private property owner—not to the State. It is the property owner who must exercise that right—not the State.” Yet it seems clear to me that setting a default rule by statute is not exercising the right to exclude; after all, New York freely allows these property owners to opt-in to be a gun-friendly zone…
If the state can “vindicate[]” the right of property owners to exclude after the fact by arresting and prosecuting trespassers (i.e., those who carry over objection), why can’t it vindicate that interest ex ante by establishing a default rule that serves that interest and still allows property owners who desire guns on their property to opt-in?“
KBCraig
NES Member
Some people still understand that, and advocate things like 10,000% taxation on ammunition.
KBCraig
NES Member
How long did it take after desegregation and civil rights were the law, before those were fully recognized everywhere?
Rights denied are still rights.
KBCraig
NES Member
Feel free. No federal law against either one. The howitzer would be registered as a Destructive Device under NFA, but a black powder mortar isn't restricted at all (YMMV in Massachusetts).
pastera
NES Member
I agree - My response was pointing out that the legal system is slow to correct injustices
MaverickNH
NES Member
I know some people rag on this kid for his awkward delivery, but I like him and found he does have a sense of humor about himself, as proven last video when answering a viewer question with, “Of course I’m not wearing pants, why would I, you can only see me from the waist up.’
Anyway he put out a new video this evening explaining California’s arguments in their new Miller v. Bonta supplemental briefs. Also expressing his opinion that Benitez will release an opinion probably within 30 days now that Benitez denied California’s extension request and all briefs and responses have been filed.
Challenge to California Fee-Shifting Statute That Targets Gun Lawsuit Plaintiffs (and Lawyers) Can Proceed
The case is not rendered moot or unripe, the court says, by the California AG's "commitment not to seek attorney's fees or costs under this provision 'unless and until a court ultimately holds that the fee-shifting provision in [a similar Texas law provision related to abortion] is...
reason.com
“We really don’t think we’ll enforce our law” doesn’t cut the mustard in Miller v. Bonta, decided yesterday by Judge Roger Benitez (S.D. Cal.)
KBCraig
NES Member
And my post was agreeing with you about that.
After decades of post-Miller courts refusing to recognize 2A rights, all of a sudden people think Heller, McDonald, and Bruen were supposed to mean all gun laws vanish overnight.
That's not how reality works.
pastera
NES Member
At 53 I think I may see Miller crushed and GCA/NFA destroyed but the fight is for my children and, hopefully, grandchildren.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
It all comes down to this.
'
'
MaverickNH
NES Member
“The more liberals present originalist arguments, the more they legitimate originalism rather than refuting it and offering a compelling alternative… Originalism may not yet be the undisputed law of the land. There is a pull and tug among the conservative justices over what deference is due to precedents not grounded in originalism…”
Let’s just hope gun control advocates follow WaPo’s advice and tells the judges “Screw Originalist historical analogies - we’re going back to the Rational Basis Test!”
bfm
NES Member
Bianchi vs Frosh, AWB and mag limit case, 4th circuit court of appeals. Panel is a GHW bush judge, an Obama judge who previously voted to uphold an AWB pre NYSRPA and a trump judge
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blpt4hVf_0M
Arguments started about an hour ago.
The woman judge speaking is Thacker , who was in the en banc majority in the previous case, Kolbe. Can’t tell she s doesn’t give a damn about the SCOTUS NYSRPA decision. She still wants interest balancing bs. She’s an activist pos.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blpt4hVf_0M
Arguments started about an hour ago.
The woman judge speaking is Thacker , who was in the en banc majority in the previous case, Kolbe. Can’t tell she s doesn’t give a damn about the SCOTUS NYSRPA decision. She still wants interest balancing bs. She’s an activist pos.
Last edited:
The arrogance of the Maryland assistant AG is hilarious. These state lawyers really don’t like not having the bs two step interest balancing test which was a cake walk to uphold any gun law. Now they need to have a real legal reasoning and they don’t like it.
The HW Bush and trump judge definitely sound unfavorable to Marylands position.
The HW Bush and trump judge definitely sound unfavorable to Marylands position.
4th Circuit weighs constitutionality of Maryland's assault-style weapons ban
Looks like they're going to strike it down. What's next? En banc hearing or SCOTUS?
Looks like they're going to strike it down. What's next? En banc hearing or SCOTUS?
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
en banc which means another year of waiting and then maybe an appeal to scotus for the losers which means another year or 2.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,176
- Likes
- 3,311
Will the Bruen decision effect towns/cities creating anti-gun zoning rules to stop gun stores from opening?
Like in Newton, they would not be able to cite "public safety" as an excuse to stop a gun shop from opening?
Like in Newton, they would not be able to cite "public safety" as an excuse to stop a gun shop from opening?
If the law implicates the 2nd amendment, the law must be analogous to gun laws in 1791 or 1865. Since those laws in Newton, etc do implicate the 2nd amendment, the burden is on them to prove the law is analogous to one’s from 1791 and 1865. They will fail to show historical evidence of similar laws. The only thing I know of is some cities had, essentially fire regulations, limiting the amount of gun powder one could store at their house. Any extra gun powder needed to be stored in another location. Obviously gun powder was much less stable than now and fire departments and fire protection didn’t really exist back then
Similar threads
