User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:45:08 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:49:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Tag for flightless bird legal insight
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:57:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryI would have preferred to know what questions the court asked, that doesn't tell me much. I would assume that this Court will do nothing to help gun owners and we can only hope that maybe the Supreme Court takes the case and maybe helps us. I think my opinion is as much shaped by being cynical and discouraged as any legal analysis, so who knows. I have zero past success at predicting what the Supreme Court will do
 My fairly useless guess is that if we are lucky the 7/10 ban will remain dead while the case tries to get to the SC, and that the appellate court will either just affirm the lower court ruling, or affirm except reinstateing the 7/10 law. That is such a spectacularly silly law that I wonder if even this court will back it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 4:02:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 9:25:57 PM EDT
[#5]
"Tractor trailers comprise 2% of all vehicle registrations in the U.S. I dare you to drive a mile down the interstate and tell me they are not in common use". Paraphrasing the common use argument from our side.
ETA: They did ask about the logic behind the 7 round limit stating "criminals will just load 10 anyway." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:48:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case? Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:21:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case? Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. I'm a bit slow tonight. Is this a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 3:15:38 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a bit slow tonight. Is this a good or bad thing? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case? Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. I'm a bit slow tonight. Is this a good or bad thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 6:58:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good thing. Strict scrutiny (ALL scrutiny tests are BS BTW) puts the Second on the same footing as the First, Fourth and Fifth. Minimal government restrictions on a civil right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case? Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. I'm a bit slow tonight. Is this a good or bad thing? Good. I'm terrible at deciphering legal mumbo jumbo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:08:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you see the recent 6th circuit strict scrutiny decision having any effect on the 2nd case? Strict scrutiny from the 9th recently also, AND they called out the 2nd on their past decisions. Peruta was gloriously written in pimp-slapping the Stooges in the 2nd, but of course the justices in the 2nd believe they're more better than everyone else and couldn't possibly be wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:30:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuote History David Thompson completely destroyed the testimony offered by Christopher Koper, the key expert witness for both NY and CT. By the end of the arguments, it was clear to the judges that Koper admitted that “There is little evidence that the AW ban will work or that bans of any ‘military features’ will have any effect.” Both lawyers for NY and CT scrambled to answer this apparent contradiction from their key expert witness with no effect. In fact, they were forced to resort to quoting the “Mother Jones” website as the only other ‘expert’ testimony that they could offer! Makes me 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 2:10:05 PM EDT
[#12]
It's common sense. Hopefully these judges have some amount of integrity and testicular fortitude.
But we all know I'm young and naive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 7:22:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would have preferred to know what questions the court asked, that doesn't tell me much. I would assume that this Court will do nothing to help gun owners and we can only hope that maybe the Supreme Court takes the case and maybe helps us. I think my opinion is as much shaped by being cynical and discouraged as any legal analysis, so who knows. I have zero past success at predicting what the Supreme Court will do My fairly useless guess is that if we are lucky the 7/10 ban will remain dead while the case tries to get to the SC, and that the appellate court will either just affirm the lower court ruling, or affirm except reinstateing the 7/10 law. That is such a spectacularly silly law that I wonder if even this court will back it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would assume that this Court will do nothing to help gun owners and we can only hope that maybe the Supreme Court takes the case and maybe helps us. I think my opinion is as much shaped by being cynical and discouraged as any legal analysis, so who knows. I have zero past success at predicting what the Supreme Court will do My fairly useless guess is that if we are lucky the 7/10 ban will remain dead while the case tries to get to the SC, and that the appellate court will either just affirm the lower court ruling, or affirm except reinstateing the 7/10 law. That is such a spectacularly silly law that I wonder if even this court will back it.
CA2 is all messed up with public actually being able to hear the oral arguments. A tape has been requested and will be hosted, IIRC cor Kachalsky it took a few weeks for them to process the request. Here's the problem that arises with NYSRPA's case: The CA2 painted themselves into a corner with Kachalsky and having firearms within the home and actual ownership being dictated at a "strict scrutiny level" while then using a rational basis interest balancing equation masquerading around as intermediate scrutiny for the actual decision. I have no doubt that the CA2 will magically find fault in some form, then give the government unlimited leeway in "protecting people", followed by the inevitable decision that the ban is A-OK! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 8:14:05 AM EDT
[#14]
I don't see how that one judge said that seven rounds in arbitrary but ten isn't
Really? if a gun is designed and sold elsewhere with a capacity of anywhere 11-17 rounds but we are stuck with ten, how is that anything BUT an arbitrary limit on what we are allowed to carry |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 8:41:35 AM EDT
[#15]
I heard some journalist or law professer talking about gay marriage on NPR last year and thought he had a good point. He said that judges are upper middle class well educated people and that constitutional law is really just the mores of that social group pushed onto everyone else. When those judges see that their friends, neighbors and golf buddies are suddenly going "meh, gay marriage, maybe it's time has come" than voila, a new constitutional right is "found" where before none existed.
Similarly this tends not to be a group that buys AR15s or carries glocks on a daily basis. even though ar15 s are everywhere now, these guys don't know that and probably still view military rifles as "what do you need THAT for?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 9:22:03 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see how that one judge said that seven rounds in arbitrary but ten isn't Really? if a gun is designed and sold elsewhere with a capacity of anywhere 11-17 rounds but we are stuck with ten, how is that anything BUT an arbitrary limit on what we are allowed to carry It's because 10 is a nice round number and 7 is all pointy and crooked...and stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 9:35:20 AM EDT
[#17]
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A.
"Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 10:08:52 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I heard some journalist or law professer talking about gay marriage on NPR last year and thought he had a good point. He said that judges are upper middle class well educated people and that constitutional law is really just the mores of that social group pushed onto everyone else. When those judges see that their friends, neighbors and golf buddies are suddenly going "meh, gay marriage, maybe it's time has come" than voila, a new constitutional right is "found" where before none existed. Similarly this tends not to be a group that buys AR15s or carries glocks on a daily basis. even though ar15 s are everywhere now, these guys don't know that and probably still view military rifles as "what do you need THAT for?" so this all boils down to peer pressure? we're doomed. and when i say we're, i mean western civilization.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 10:11:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heard some journalist or law professer talking about gay marriage on NPR last year and thought he had a good point. He said that judges are upper middle class well educated people and that constitutional law is really just the mores of that social group pushed onto everyone else. When those judges see that their friends, neighbors and golf buddies are suddenly going "meh, gay marriage, maybe it's time has come" than voila, a new constitutional right is "found" where before none existed. Similarly this tends not to be a group that buys AR15s or carries glocks on a daily basis. even though ar15 s are everywhere now, these guys don't know that and probably still view military rifles as "what do you need THAT for?" That's depressing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's depressing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I heard some journalist or law professer talking about gay marriage on NPR last year and thought he had a good point. He said that judges are upper middle class well educated people and that constitutional law is really just the mores of that social group pushed onto everyone else. When those judges see that their friends, neighbors and golf buddies are suddenly going "meh, gay marriage, maybe it's time has come" than voila, a new constitutional right is "found" where before none existed. Similarly this tends not to be a group that buys AR15s or carries glocks on a daily basis. even though ar15 s are everywhere now, these guys don't know that and probably still view military rifles as "what do you need THAT for?" That's depressing. Probably accurate though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 10:47:14 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's depressing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I heard some journalist or law professer talking about gay marriage on NPR last year and thought he had a good point. He said that judges are upper middle class well educated people and that constitutional law is really just the mores of that social group pushed onto everyone else. When those judges see that their friends, neighbors and golf buddies are suddenly going "meh, gay marriage, maybe it's time has come" than voila, a new constitutional right is "found" where before none existed. Similarly this tends not to be a group that buys AR15s or carries glocks on a daily basis. even though ar15 s are everywhere now, these guys don't know that and probably still view military rifles as "what do you need THAT for?" That's depressing.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 11:56:39 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Contextually irrelevant in your statement. We know certain people cannot own arms (Foreign fighters, mentally insane, murderers). However, the common understanding should be "[the legal right to keep, carry, and use firearms for non-adjudicated persons] shall not be infringed". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:00:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:26:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:43:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. How's that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:47:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. How's that? Listen to the oral arguements. The NYSAGs office that was defending "may issue" said that the people are not infringed upon because they can openly carry rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:54:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Listen to the oral arguements. The NYSAGs office that was defending "may issue" said that the people are not infringed upon because they can openly carry rifles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. How's that? Listen to the oral arguements. The NYSAGs office that was defending "may issue" said that the people are not infringed upon because they can openly carry rifles. lol twisted logic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 1:36:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol twisted logic Also in error. Many counties have ordinances against that. You could, if you take the Kachalsky decision word for word, beat a tourist to death in Times Square. Since tourists can't be armed in NYS and we "do not arm people in case of imaginary confrontation" (something like that) then your beating them to death where they would have been otherwise able to use lethal force to defend themselves would be likewise imaginary. Its a fucked up decision that basically took a NYC attitude and threw some legal terms together to make it appear legit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 1:37:38 PM EDT
[#29]
We could have Atticus Finch, Perry Mason, with My Cousin Vinny and Erin Brokovich preparing the case, and we will still LOSE.
The outcome has been pre-determined. It's all about power and money. The two things that have corrupted humans since the dawn of time. No media on our side, well, then don't expect anything. Sorry to piss on your parade. Now, if we could get blacks, gays and femi-nazis on our side, maybe we would have a fighting chance...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 2:24:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I know the decision won't be out for months, but no reports on what happened at oral arguments. Not that I foresee the appellate court doing anything for gun owners. I'm more curious if they will reinstate the 7/10 ban and clean up the brake bullshit to tighten down the chains on gunowners for Cuomo. The 2nd does not provide argument recordings or transcripts, but I've heard that you can pay for a CD of audio of the arguments. SCOTUS provides transcripts which is pretty handy. Honestly, considering what we pay for the federal court system we should have the same access to argument transcripts at the Circuit level that we do at SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 3:25:23 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Listen to the oral arguements. The NYSAGs office that was defending "may issue" said that the people are not infringed upon because they can openly carry rifles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Accord to the NYSAG's office in Kachalsky, that is exactly what NYS allows. How's that? Listen to the oral arguements. The NYSAGs office that was defending "may issue" said that the people are not infringed upon because they can openly carry rifles. Good God the volume of calls during hunting season is ridiculous, can't imagine the response to open carry in a residential setting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 5:06:14 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While we might clamor for the courts to recognize and apply strict scrutiny to 2A cases, "shall not be infringed" means that scrutiny (a fabricated element anyway) DOES NOT APPLY to 2A. "Shall not be infringed" means FIND ANOTHER WAY to solve problems involving firearms. NO scrutiny. Don't drink the cool-aid because it sounds better. Eh. Is it an infringement on your right to bear arms to not allow people to carry a loaded rifle at the low ready into a school or bus station? You have to have some reasonable level of scrutiny. We used to. It was called the noose. When I was a kid we brought guns into school, on school buses, etc. What "no scrutiny" means is if you can't trust somebody to carry a gun into a school or a bus station, then find some other way to deal with it. In the good old days nutjobs were locked up in the asylum, criminals were in jail (or dead), and if the cops didn't give them a good wacking now and then to remind them the behave the mafia would take care of it. So if the government did its work of keeping violent criminals in jail (or noosed) and psychos in the ward and inner city hoods under control we wouldn't have so many damned gun laws. Trying to control the gun is the easy way out, at least on paper- but it clearly doesn't work. Thus the "find another way" clarity of "shall not infringe" |
|
|
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.
