Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/18/2005 11:22:06 AM EDT
A business contact of mine and I got on the subject of the rkba. He asked why hadn't the NRA or anyone else sued Ca. or any of the others for violating the peoples 2nd ammendment rights. He pointed out that if some state decided women could no longer vote there would be a huge shitstorm, so why not on the rkba?

I dunno was my answer.


Anybody?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:24:40 AM EDT
For any lawyers out there I would ask whether the NRA would have standing to file such a suit.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:25:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:26:46 AM EDT
Something like that will only go to SCOTUS once. We lose, we lose BIG.

Gotta pick your battles. You don't want the Supremes ruling on 2A unless
it's a lockdown win.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:28:08 AM EDT
I'm fairly sure that the California laws have been challenged in court. It may be that the appeals courts simply refused to hear the appeals.

Hoping a CA lawyer can clarify for us...
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:28:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 11:30:33 AM EDT by JBowles]
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=376633


becuase the 2nd admendment only keeps the US gov from taking your guns not the Cali goverment

Califronia has nothing even close to right to keep and bear arms
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:34:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=376633


becuase the 2nd admendment only keeps the US gov from taking your guns not the Cali goverment

Califronia has nothing even close to right to keep and bear arms



State law cannot override federal. Federal law (2nd ammendment) says you cannot write laws that infringe RKBA...
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:35:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:

becuase the 2nd admendment only keeps the US gov from taking your guns not the Cali goverment

Califronia has nothing even close to right to keep and bear arms


Yes we do...we're allowed to look at pictures of other peoples' firearms on the internet.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:38:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Something like that will only go to SCOTUS once. We lose, we lose BIG.

Gotta pick your battles. You don't want the Supremes ruling on 2A unless
it's a lockdown win.



Bingo.

With a court that gave us Kelo, I sure as hell don't want them ruling on the 2nd.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:45:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=376633

becuase the 2nd admendment only keeps the US gov from taking your guns not the Cali goverment

Califronia has nothing even close to right to keep and bear arms



That was what I was thinking at first, but the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States (I think I remember that right). We'll have to keep thinking on this one.

R.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 12:00:39 PM EDT
The NRA refused to get behind it, but take a look at the Silveira v. Lockyer case from a couple of years ago. Several guys got together to challenge the Kali AW ban on 2A grounds. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals ruled that the 2A is a state right, not an individual right. Supremes (of course) declined to take the case because it would have either been a slam dunk in our favor, or cause for the revolution to begin. They didn't like either option, so they just opted out.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 12:06:30 PM EDT
What would be the goal of the lawsuit? Have all CA guns laws removed, period? Go for cash taken from the legislators own pockets?

Taking money from the state would just hurt people already in poor finacial status. So are the laws the targets or the anti gun politicians?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 12:11:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ErinMT:
What would be the goal of the lawsuit? Have all CA guns laws removed, period? Go for cash taken from the legislators own pockets?

Taking money from the state would just hurt people already in poor finacial status. So are the laws the targets or the anti gun politicians?



A challenge would likely be a criminal case and would result in striking down one or more California laws. Might be some money damages but not the focus.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 12:13:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vsound:
Supremes (of course) declined to take the case because it would have either been a slam dunk in our favor, or cause for the revolution to begin. They didn't like either option, so they just opted out.



All the while, the water gets hotter, and the hogs get more hungry.
Top Top