Bring your wife for a four-some.Wait. So if I head to VT, I've got a chance of some lonely mother/daughter 3-some action???? Hell, I might put a Biden sticker on my car for that one. ROFL!!!
OK, maybe not.
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.
Bring your wife for a four-some.Wait. So if I head to VT, I've got a chance of some lonely mother/daughter 3-some action???? Hell, I might put a Biden sticker on my car for that one. ROFL!!!
OK, maybe not.
There was a civil lawsuit that the courts more or less ignored, choosing instead to decide the issue with the criminal case.The person charged is very cringy. If they found a better defendant I would assume they would have had a better chance
Vermont Supreme Court upholds historic gun control law - VTDigger
The court rejected a bid by white nationalist Max Misch to throw out two misdemeanor charges against him of illegally possessing high-capacity magazines in violation of the law.vtdigger.org
Traitors and tyrants.
About 6 decades ago (+/-, my history is fuzzy), Burlington allowed out-of-state UVM students to vote locally... Burlington city council members are now 58% progressives. We don't go to Burlington...Shocked. Remember when Vermonters talked about how awesome they were regarding gun laws??? Friends don’t let friends allow liberals go unchecked. The fight is every day all the time.
SCOTUS would punt, leaving all mag pans in place.I actually hope VT wins this case, so that the plaintiffs can take it to the US Supreme Court and get magazine bans ruled unconstitutional there, that way all magazine bans nationwide would fall.
Yes I know, not going to happen, but its a nice dream at least.
SCOTUS would punt, leaving all mag pans in place.
If I understand correctly, this ruling was up a pretrial appeal path. So, guy has 30 round mags, gets charged (because charge anything and make defendant prove they aren’t new mags from NH) but hasn’t had trial yet, so hasn’t had a chance to try to turn it around with “FU, prosecutor, YOU prove they’re new; I say they’ve been in my possession for 5 years”Was this guy caught in the act of bringing the mags back from NH? Other than that, not sure how they can tell if you got the mag in 2018 or today, or 10 years ago. Lots of mags are not dated and have looked the same for years depending on the model.
Jonathan T. Rose of Dunkiel Saunders Elliott Raubvogel & Hand, PLLC, Burlington, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L. Alikhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General, and Sonya L. Lebsack, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.
Interesting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?If I understand correctly, this ruling was up a pretrial appeal path. So, guy has 30 round mags, gets charged (because charge anything and make defendant prove they aren’t new mags from NH) but hasn’t had trial yet, so hasn’t had a chance to try to turn it around with “FU, prosecutor, YOU prove they’re new; I say they’ve been in my possession for 5 years”
Shocked. Remember when Vermonters talked about how awesome they were regarding gun laws??? Friends don’t let friends allow liberals go unchecked. The fight is every day all the time.
He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he isInteresting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?
Who gives a shit what he believes? Rights are rights.He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he is
Yes, I see that now since I started digging in. I would hope in a normal proceeding (not pre-trial) it would be up to the state to figure it out, which would be difficult if not impossible depending on what you buy and how you buy it.He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he is
Who gives a shit what he believes? Rights are rights.
He is not an average Joe if you google him you can see who he is
He was a target clearly and a bad test candidate for the gun rights side.Who gives a shit what he believes? Rights are rights.
Lifetime appointment. They aren't "responsible" to anyone.I go back and forth on this....
I wonder if certain justices need a little time to get over their TDS and remember what their job actually is......and that they are responsible to we the people not their own feels
I'm gonna reserve judgement until we see what comes out of the current unpleasantness
Election Litigation - SCOTUSblog
Welcome to the 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of Election Law at Ohio State and SCOTUSblog. During the 2020 election season, we will provide up-to-date information on major election law cases as they make their way through every level of the court system. Our goal is to serve as awww.scotusblog.com
Or ... not different from MA, CA or any other state that has capacity restrictions. Or, really, any person, any allegation, any state. Throw every charge you can find in a search of the jurisdiction’s legal code at the poor bastard and let the lawyers and judges argue it out.Interesting. So I guess anyone in VT with hi-caps that pretty much look all the same with no dates can be jammed up at any time and have to prove it? I have not read the entire case yet, but was this guy special for some reason? Or just another joe going about his business?
“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”
Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.
Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?
Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
To be honest I don't. VT has always been a reluctant 2A state as far as I've seen over the past years. VT has an insane amount of SJW/guilt complex around its leadership.
Because that has everything to do with rights. Must be as pure as the white snow.The person charged is very cringy. If they found a better defendant I would assume they would have had a better chance
If the magazine size has nothing to do with defense, then police and state level members of the National Guard should also be restricted to the same level as the general population. How well would that fly?“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”
Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.
Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?
Any time a lefty argues the “yelling fire “ point as a way to frame their gun control arguments, I simply remind them that I actually CAN yell fire in a crowded room. The government didn’t view it as such a serious risk to public safety that they removed my ability to vocalize and form those words. I can yell it and then be held legally responsible for the results of my vocalization after the fact.“We conclude that the magazine ban is a reasonable regulation of the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense,”
Logic or rationality is rarely used in 2A cases, but this seems like a really egergious decision. I did not read the whole ruling, but based on the above quote, it is uncomprehensible to me THAT is their logic in restricting a right. How the hell do you regulate a right? Isn't the whole point of a right to not be regulated. This rational is off the charts bad. An analogy to 1A and the yelling fire in a crowded room argument, it was not under question whether the 1A should be regulated. It was under question whether yelling fire is free speech. Free speech is not being regulated because it can not be regulated. Makes perfect sense that something that is not free speech could be regulated. Going back to the magazine ban, the question should be, are magazines covered in the right to bear arms or not. If they are covered, then they can not be regulated, especially when the phrase "shall not be infringed" is specifically included in the right. I am no legal expert, but it seems that machine guns may have been deemed to not fall under the 2A hence they can be regulated. The court by nature of regulating magazines effectively said that magazines are not covered under 2A at all.
Second, they are claiming that the magazine ban as it relates to self defense. Is the court really stating that self defense is the only purpose of the 2A. Could I have a large capacity magazine to better balance the gun or for target shooting?