|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional.
Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
The proper name for the carry case from New York is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) if one is only using one side.
Just like we all call Heller v DC the Heller case as Heller was the winner and the loser was the District of Columbia.
YouTubers need to quit talking about the losers, Bruen.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,595
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,595 |
The Dem's in communist run states don't intend to follow recently upheld or overturned laws as they apply to the constitution and have stated so. Also don't hold your breath waiting for federal law enforcement agency's to force them to. That certainly is true. But, the people who put handcuffs on people and take them to jail know that they do not have immunity from civil and criminal liability if: (1) they violated someone's Constitutional rights; and (2) they should have known those Constitutional rights were clearly established at the time they put the handcuffs on (or even before), as finally adjudged by a court years down the road. So, for many of the reasons that the police have been standing down in many jurisdictions because of the possibility of a runaway jury (civil or criminal, state or federal) or ambitious prosecutor (criminal), they may be less aggressive than the politicians they serve in their jurisdictions.
Last edited by Cheyenne; 06/30/22.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,595
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,595 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. I'd bet that as well.
"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. I'd bet that as well. Lots of new unplowed ground out there with this SCOTUS ruling.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,115
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,115 |
Like button necessary for that one, thanks Steve
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,046
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,046 |
Thank God for the foresight our founders had with the 2nd Amendment. They will never get the requisite 38 states to repeal it. Too many like the Dakotas, and the rest of the non-coastal west, the south, the mid-west, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, etc. etc.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 34,175
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 34,175 |
All kinds of things going our way. Tired of winning yet? LOL. So true! At this point any self-professed conservative that bitches about Trump is either ignoring the bigger picture or they’re a closet case of TDS. The REAL and LASTING impact of President Trump’s legacy, aside from illuminating the corruption of our entire government, is the true conservatives he appointed to the highest court. God bless President Trump! Amen!
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,628
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,628 |
How will this affect the WA mag ban that goes into effect tomorrow? Both Washington and California are in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. California's mag ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, in rulings that closely followed Heller. As with all pro-Second rulings, the case was overturned en banc by the Ninth Circuit. After NYSPRA the arguments used by the en banc panel to uphold the ban have been eliminated. This will leave the en banc panel with two choices: either rule that the mag bans are unconstitutional or try and come up with a new argument that they are constitutional. IMO, the odds of them coming up with an argument that a mag ban is constitutional that follows the rules laid down in NYSPRA are slim. If they try it and lose in the Supreme Court, the new SCOTUS decision would apply to the entire country. I'm sure that the en banc panel would rather eat broken glass than declare the mag bans unconstitutional, but there is a strategic advantage to it; the ruling would only apply to the states in the Ninth circuit, which would include WA and CA. This would delay nationwide coverage of the ruling, during which they would hope for some seismic change in the composition of the court. Wrong the rulings will effects state laws nation wide. Negative. Ninth Circuit rulings are only binding precedent in the states within the Ninth Circuit. They are only persuasive authority otherwise. Negative... They were remanded based on First Circuit Precedent and therefore incorporated on all 50 states.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,076
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,076 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. Perhaps, but.... New York's Sullivan Act predates the NFA by nearly 30 years. Wasn't that shot down by the NYSRPA decision?
Last edited by MickeyD; 07/01/22.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,628
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,628 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. Perhaps, but.... New York's Sullivan Act predates the NFA by nearly 30 years. Exactly! Toss the earlier case and not look VERY hard at the latter??? It should not take a rocket scientist to see the vulnerability.
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,778
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,778 |
This seemed to go under the radar for some reason. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/us/california-gun-ban-under-21-federal-ruling/index.htmlAbout wrecked the car when I heard the 9th overturned a Cali gun law. Then, we had the talk of this under 21 thing going into Brandon's new law. Personally thought it was a huge for the most liberal circuit to take that stand. But believe like someone else posted. Since they overturned it, it avoided a SCOTUS decision that would have made it nationwide. It's precedence setting maybe, but still puts off a final decision. PS. Used the CNN link just because I enjoyed them reporting on this.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,680
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,680 |
Like button necessary for that one, thanks Steve Ya welcome! The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. How so, when they speak of arms in common use and the militia. Some aspects could certainly be Constitutional, but I would say the process should be streamlined. Machineguns themselves could very well be restricted, but having suppressors, SBSs & SBRs on the NFA list makes absolutely no sense at all.
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/b6/d8/98b6d863a5f722b551cd8e1440bd2bd4.jpg) Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,411
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,411 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. The Court held Antebellum southern states laws were void if they violated the 2nd and 14th. It is looking at the time period of the founding now.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,799
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,799 |
The NFA mainly applies to automatic weapons. At the time of it’s enactment, they were only about four decades old and were not common. The NFA itself will stay.
But the “sporting purposes” clause on the 1968 importation ban and the 1986 ban on domestic manufacture of automatic weapons could get a look.
The “sporting purposes” clause on imports seems really suspect in light of the new decision. It stands to reason that if you don’t have to provide justification to the state for carrying a particular firearm, then an importer should not have to provide any justification as to the purpose of a firearm it wishes to bring into the country. And historically until 1968, there were no bans of any sort on the importation of firearms.
I would also add executive orders that ban importation of firearms and ammunition to the list as well.
Last edited by JoeBob; 07/01/22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,551
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,551 |
At one time in this Country it was Common Respect for the Amendments as they were written ..
Heller and the NYMSLSDRGC decision came about because the Marxist said No we Don’t Agree on the 200+ Year Principle of the 2nd..
Ladies and Gentlemen Harvard and Yale Law Schools ain’t done with you Yet..
In fact they ain’t done with any of the Founding Documents..
One day it will be realized that we can’t Coexist with these Psychopaths..
Roll Them or They Roll You
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,799
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,799 |
At one time in this Country it was Common Respect for the Amendments as they were written ..
Heller and the NYMSLSDRGC decision came about because the Marxist said No we Don’t Agree on the 200+ Year Principle of the 2nd..
Ladies and Gentlemen Harvard and Yale Law Schools ain’t done with you Yet..
In fact they ain’t done with any of the Founding Documents..
One day it will be realized that we can’t Coexist with these Psychopaths..
Roll Them or They Roll You We’ve been getting rolled by Yankee commies since 1865.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,687
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 14,687 |
The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional. Perhaps, but.... New York's Sullivan Act predates the NFA by nearly 30 years. Exactly! Toss the earlier case and not look VERY hard at the latter??? It should not take a rocket scientist to see the vulnerability. Logically, it seems that way. Politically, NFA is a third rail I doubt they'd touch. But then I said that about abortion. Who knows?
Politics is War by Other Means
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,411
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,411 |
SCOTUS decision Miller:
“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.
What is the standard issue weapon of the infantry?
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,270
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,270 |
Thomas gives a hint:
'... For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we
were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis
today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627...'
'...If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has
taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked
with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding
firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But
while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is
not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other
interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is
this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference. ...'
'...“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. ...'
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
552 members (160user, 17CalFan, 007FJ, 10ring1, 01Foreman400, 10gaugemag, 52 invisible),
2,358
guests, and
1,240
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,509
Posts18,472,370
Members73,936
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
