User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:22:37 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:37:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Response in PA due Tomorrow....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:39:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Soooon.....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:57:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Nolo how are the two plaintiffs holding up. They haven't drawn the attention of the anties yet I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:02:04 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Soooon..... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:22:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Soooon..... http://i.imgur.com/p9YNBVs.jpg 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:51:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk: Originally Posted By TexasRifleman1985: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Soooon..... http://i.imgur.com/p9YNBVs.jpg http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Soon_635dc9_4823588.jpg  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:53:25 AM EDT
[#8]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 2:37:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Using a DIAS would be building a separate machinegun. I'm pretty sure the lower got a hole drilled through it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By d16man:
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. Using a DIAS would be building a separate machinegun. I'm pretty sure the lower got a hole drilled through it. If this is the PA gun that's the one I heard about, the third hole was machined and a real M-16 FCG was installed. Not a DIAS gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 2:38:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87: Interestingly enough, it doesn't. The Miller ruling claims that since it wasn't a militia weapon that wasn't protected under the Second Amendment, they didn't need to define the Second Amendment as a militia nor individual right. Therefore it left the door open for the individual right as ruled in Heller, so applying the two rulings, an individual has the constitutional right to bear any militia grade weapon. Miller defines militia weapons as being protected under the Second Amendment. Heller defines the Second Amendment as an individual right. So one defines the subject, individuals, the other defines the object, militia weapons. Together it means, individuals have the right to militia weapons (read as military weapons) under the Second Amendment and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87: Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: But with the heller ruling saying that they are for individuals and not milita, doesn't that make the argument "mute"? Interestingly enough, it doesn't. The Miller ruling claims that since it wasn't a militia weapon that wasn't protected under the Second Amendment, they didn't need to define the Second Amendment as a militia nor individual right. Therefore it left the door open for the individual right as ruled in Heller, so applying the two rulings, an individual has the constitutional right to bear any militia grade weapon. Miller defines militia weapons as being protected under the Second Amendment. Heller defines the Second Amendment as an individual right. So one defines the subject, individuals, the other defines the object, militia weapons. Together it means, individuals have the right to militia weapons (read as military weapons) under the Second Amendment and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Actually, they didn't even rule THAT. What they RULED was that the lower court erred in just automatically assuming that a short-barreled shotgun was of utility to the militia and hence protected under the Second Amendment, and remanded the case back to that court for further proceedings. But, as noted, Miller was dead, his accomplice plead out to something else, so we're left with a decision that the _Heller_ court admits has significant flaws and does not meet current standards for jurisprudence, but which has been miscited by numerous lower courts in upholding infringements upon our rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 2:41:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeSearson:
This, but I could see the Supremes shooting down Hughes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeSearson:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Don't know. Assuming they take it I'll cop out and say a plurality decision upholding the NFA with no clear reasoning. This, but I could see the Supremes shooting down Hughes. I see the Supremes refusing to take the case and letting stand a lower court ruling that strikes down Hughes. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:02:46 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
I see the Supremes refusing to take the case and letting stand a lower court ruling that strikes down Hughes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
Originally Posted By MikeSearson:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Don't know. Assuming they take it I'll cop out and say a plurality decision upholding the NFA with no clear reasoning. This, but I could see the Supremes shooting down Hughes. I see the Supremes refusing to take the case and letting stand a lower court ruling that strikes down Hughes. Anyone else this waits until After 2016 and Ginsberg is not there? |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:37:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Depending on the Courts, this case may not be at the appellate level until 2016. The best case scenario would be that Ginsberg holds on another two years, a Conservative not RINO gets into office, and we get a Conservative justice on the bench who can make up for Kennedy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:39:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Top_Secret]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
I see the Supremes refusing to take the case and letting stand a lower court ruling that strikes down Hughes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
Originally Posted By MikeSearson:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Don't know. Assuming they take it I'll cop out and say a plurality decision upholding the NFA with no clear reasoning. This, but I could see the Supremes shooting down Hughes. I see the Supremes refusing to take the case and letting stand a lower court ruling that strikes down Hughes. That would cause a certain region of the US to be allowed to register MGs and the rest of the country wouldn't. I can't really see it going down like that. ATF would refuse to accept registrations from anyone outside of that district. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:45:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Top_Secret:
That would cause a certain region of the US to be allowed to register MGs and the rest of the country wouldn't. I can't really see it going down like that. ATF would refuse to accept registrations from anyone outside of that district. Yeah 14th Amendment Dangerzone? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:59:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SlayerofFudds]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealPaGunner:
Depending on the Courts, this case may not be at the appellate level until 2016. The best case scenario would be that Ginsberg holds on another two years, a Conservative not RINO gets into office, and we get a Conservative justice on the bench who can make up for Kennedy. I rarely wish death but when a member of the Supreme Court says we need to apply the rulings of Alien Nations and their courts to our own you can only come to 3 outcome of people that say and would do such things. 1. They do not value America, her people, her culture ore the Constitution. 2. They wish to remake a nation already made into the image of a weaker and less nation. 3.,They hate America, and want to do everything in their power to do as much damage as to destroy everything that makes her great. I want her to live a long time. Can not wait for the ruling. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:02:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause. 
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:14:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I can not get the feeling he will screw us over.. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. I can not get the feeling he will screw us over.. Have you read the opinion? Do you understand it? What does it say is the "...central component..." of the Second Amendment? How do the regulations imposed by the NFA relate to that "... central component ..."? Do they impair the ability of Americans with respect to that "central component..."? CJ Roberts assigned the case and voted for the opinion. These questions are the keys to answering the question of how he will vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:17:11 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:35:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Have you read the opinion? Do you understand it? What does it say is the "...central component..." of the Second Amendment? How do the regulations imposed by the NFA relate to that "... central component ..."? Do they impair the ability of Americans with respect to that "central component..."? CJ Roberts assigned the case and voted for the opinion. These questions are the keys to answering the question of how he will vote. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. I can not get the feeling he will screw us over.. Have you read the opinion? Do you understand it? What does it say is the "...central component..." of the Second Amendment? How do the regulations imposed by the NFA relate to that "... central component ..."? Do they impair the ability of Americans with respect to that "central component..."? CJ Roberts assigned the case and voted for the opinion. These questions are the keys to answering the question of how he will vote. I have not read them..I am sorry. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:36:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kuraki:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/117/021/enhanced-buzz-28895-1301694293-0.jpg I really hope that was photo shopped.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:43:20 AM EDT
[#22]
soon as like rape sloth soon? |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:47:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:54:27 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 9:56:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 10:53:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause.
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. NFA, as amended, is both. The Hughes Amendment is not a tax. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:08:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? +1. I'd like to go through that also. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:21:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GuardianAgent:
NFA, as amended, is both. The Hughes Amendment is not a tax. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause.
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. NFA, as amended, is both. The Hughes Amendment is not a tax. The NFA is a tax statute which is why it is codified in Title 26. The Hughes amendment is not part of the NFA, which is why it is not codified in Title 26. It's impossible to take people seriously when they haven't even read the statutes on which they are giving opinions. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:27:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
+1. I'd like to go through that also. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? +1. I'd like to go through that also. It's not CJ Robert's opinion. It's the opinion in Heller. He assigned the case to Justice Scalia to draft the opinion. He voted for the decision. If he did not agree with Heller it would have been drafted differently. Therefore, the opinion in Heller is the key to how he would vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:47:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By GuardianAgent:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. How do you think Roberts will vote? Read the Heller opinion carefully. The answer to your question is there. Read the Obamacare opinion carefully. NFA is all based on the Commerce Clause. Roberts has already stated his opinion on how Congress has utilized the Commerce Clause.
The NFA is a tax statute. It is not based on the commerce clause. Speaking of, since when was the DoJ entrusted with tax collection powers? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:48:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Has this one been used yet? |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:52:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
Speaking of, since when was the DoJ entrusted with tax collection powers? The DOJ was empowered by Congress to collect NFA taxes when it transferred BATF to DOJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 11:59:18 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
It's not CJ Robert's opinion. It's the opinion in Heller. He assigned the case to Justice Scalia to draft the opinion. He voted for the decision. If he did not agree with Heller it would have been drafted differently. Therefore, the opinion in Heller is the key to how he would vote. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Finnbear:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? +1. I'd like to go through that also. It's not CJ Robert's opinion. It's the opinion in Heller. He assigned the case to Justice Scalia to draft the opinion. He voted for the decision. If he did not agree with Heller it would have been drafted differently. Therefore, the opinion in Heller is the key to how he would vote. I don't think an opinion a particular justice agreed with is necessarily indicative of how they would rule on a different issue. It might provide a clue. But that is the only thing it might provide. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:05:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The DOJ was empowered by Congress to collect NFA taxes when it transferred BATF to DOJ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Speaking of, since when was the DoJ entrusted with tax collection powers? The DOJ was empowered by Congress to collect NFA taxes when it transferred BATF to DOJ. Huh, fair enough. Got a link of the exact section by any chance? My googlefu apparently is inversely related to my insomnia state. 
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:07:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
I don't think an opinion a particular justice agreed with is necessarily indicative of how they would rule on a different issue. It might provide a clue. But that is the only thing it might provide. He's the CJ. So long as he is in the majority he assigns the opinion for drafting. If he doesn't agree with the opinion it never sees the light of day, or at best shows up as a concurring opinion rather than as the decision. In extreme cases, he changes his vote and the opinion originally drafted as the decision becomes a dissenting opinion. If he didn't agree with the analysis in Heller it would not have been the decision of the court. Figure out how Heller applies to these cases and you have figured out how he would vote. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:08:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
Huh, fair enough. Got a link of the exact section by any chance? My googlefu apparently is inversely related to my insomnia state. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Loremsk:
Speaking of, since when was the DoJ entrusted with tax collection powers? The DOJ was empowered by Congress to collect NFA taxes when it transferred BATF to DOJ. Huh, fair enough. Got a link of the exact section by any chance? My googlefu apparently is inversely related to my insomnia state. IIRC the transfer was done at the time of the government reorganization which brought us the DHS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:23:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
He's the CJ. So long as he is in the majority he assigns the opinion for drafting. If he doesn't agree with the opinion it never sees the light of day, or at best shows up as a concurring opinion rather than as the decision. In extreme cases, he changes his vote and the opinion originally drafted as the decision becomes a dissenting opinion. If he didn't agree with the analysis in Heller it would not have been the decision of the court. Figure out how Heller applies to these cases and you have figured out how he would vote. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
I don't think an opinion a particular justice agreed with is necessarily indicative of how they would rule on a different issue. It might provide a clue. But that is the only thing it might provide. He's the CJ. So long as he is in the majority he assigns the opinion for drafting. If he doesn't agree with the opinion it never sees the light of day, or at best shows up as a concurring opinion rather than as the decision. In extreme cases, he changes his vote and the opinion originally drafted as the decision becomes a dissenting opinion. If he didn't agree with the analysis in Heller it would not have been the decision of the court. Figure out how Heller applies to these cases and you have figured out how he would vote. Your legal analysis is far too simplistic and I note that you have been deliberately vague in answering the question of how he would vote. Those are two traits of lawyers that tend to annoy lay people the most. So answer it directly: How would Roberts vote? Give us his reason and rationale reader of tea leaves. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:40:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Your legal analysis is far too simplistic and I note that you have been deliberately vague in answering the question of how he would vote. Those are two traits of lawyers that tend to annoy lay people the most. So answer it directly: How would Roberts vote? Give us his reason and rationale reader of tea leaves. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
I don't think an opinion a particular justice agreed with is necessarily indicative of how they would rule on a different issue. It might provide a clue. But that is the only thing it might provide. He's the CJ. So long as he is in the majority he assigns the opinion for drafting. If he doesn't agree with the opinion it never sees the light of day, or at best shows up as a concurring opinion rather than as the decision. In extreme cases, he changes his vote and the opinion originally drafted as the decision becomes a dissenting opinion. If he didn't agree with the analysis in Heller it would not have been the decision of the court. Figure out how Heller applies to these cases and you have figured out how he would vote. Your legal analysis is far too simplistic and I note that you have been deliberately vague in answering the question of how he would vote. Those are two traits of lawyers that tend to annoy lay people the most. So answer it directly: How would Roberts vote? Give us his reason and rationale reader of tea leaves. Have you read the questions I posed? Have you determined what the opinion holds to be the " ... central concept ..." of the Second Amendment? Have you attempted to apply that "...central concept..." to the questions raised in these cases? If you haven't managed to properly analyze the opinion yourself, you're in no position to render a judgment on whether my analysis is "simplistic". Any analysis is far beyond what you have even attempted. I invite everyone to read the opinion carefully with my original questions in mind and to reach their own conclusions. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:52:55 PM EDT
[#39]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:59:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM: Have you read the opinion? Do you understand it? What does it say is the "...central component..." of the Second Amendment? How do the regulations imposed by the NFA relate to that "... central component ..."? Do they impair the ability of Americans with respect to that "central component..."? CJ Roberts assigned the case and voted for the opinion. These questions are the keys to answering the question of how he will vote. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a "subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:05:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrankDrebin]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Have you read the questions I posed? Have you determined what the opinion holds to be the " ... central concept ..." of the Second Amendment? Have you attempted to apply that "...central concept..." to the questions raised in these cases? If you haven't managed to properly analyze the opinion yourself, you're in no position to render a judgment on whether my analysis is "simplistic". Any analysis is far beyond what you have even attempted. I invite everyone to read the opinion carefully with my original questions in mind and to reach their own conclusions. That's all just more non-answers. I have clearly stated I don't have the ability to predict how a particular Justice would rule on a different issue. There is not enough data points and certainly not enough to know how he would rule based upon an opinion he did not author. So why not just answer the question directly? Edited: It boils down to the fact that you are alluding to having some keen insight on how Roberts would rule, but only willing to leave bread crumbs. You are doing so for plausible deniability in the even lightening strikes and SCOTUS does in fact review this issue and Roberts does not decide the case as you predicted. Why not just be intellectually honest and say you have no idea how he would rule. You could even hedge by stating that even Justices of the United States Supreme Court can reach intellectually dishonest opinions in order reach a result even if it is seemingly inconsistent with prior decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:20:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
+1. I'd like to go through that also. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would vote if these cases ever reached the court. In your opinion do you think he will hold to that opinion? I hate to ask for a link to them but could you give me one to his opinion? +1. I'd like to go through that also. Thank You |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 1:21:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bflamante:
READ IT PEOPLE. Scalia is leaving the door open for self defense arguments. POLY has a valid point. [div style='margin-left: 40px;']It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’sprefatory clause announces the purpose for whichthe right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.The prefatory clause does not suggest that preservingthe militia was the only reason Americans valued theancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even moreimportant for self-defense and hunting. But the threatthat the new Federal Government would destroy thecitizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reasonthat right—unlike some other English rights—was codifiedin a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertionthat individual self-defense is merely a "subsidiaryinterest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solelyupon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefensehad little to do with the right’s codification; it wasthe central component of the right itself. Breyer is a tool. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 2:14:18 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 2:17:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Nolo, where is the update?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 3:34:58 PM EDT
[#46]
What is the response in PA like?
Any previews? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 3:38:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds: What is the response in PA like? Any previews? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 3:41:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds: What is the response in PA like? Any previews? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 4:14:01 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 4:24:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would may possibly vote if these cases ever reached the court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I have not read them..I am sorry. No need to be sorry. Most people have not read it and yet they believe they know what it says. Read the opinion. Find out what it says about the " ... central component ..." of the Second Amendment. Then ask yourself the other questions. When you get the answers you'll be miles ahead of many people when it comes to answering the question of how he would may possibly vote if these cases ever reached the court. FIFY. Predicting some votes on the USSC is akin to fortune telling. Some Justices you can presume will be on our side, some (Ginsburg especially) you can count on to be wrong consistently. Roberts and Kennedy... toss up. I'd like to think that they base their decisions on the arguments actually presented, but Roberts's Obungocare opinion throws a wrench into that line of thinking. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
