Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/5/2007 10:43:31 PM EDT
I'm just thinking about it and I really hope they find that the ban is unconstitutional. It would be a huge victory for pro-2A USA. With the way things are going what do you think the court will rule?
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:44:46 PM EDT
Miller-esque cop out but D.C.'s outright ban will be tossed.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:46:01 PM EDT
"DC, you cant do that...to a point."
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:48:21 PM EDT
Individual right and strict scrutiny.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:50:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:50:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


I sure hope so. I do have a small glimmer of hope to see the '86 ban go buh-bye so I can buy me some MGs. I don't even mind if they keep the NFA Tax stamp system in place. It just keeps criminals from easy access to MGs. That is one restriction I don't mind.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:52:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Miller-esque cop out but D.C.'s outright ban will be tossed.



For the Win!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:53:34 PM EDT
If history of past decisions is an indicator, the future is very dark.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:54:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
If history of past decisions is an indicator, the future is very dark.


I don't think anyone who post here really requires reminding.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sprayandpray:

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Miller-esque cop out but D.C.'s outright ban will be tossed.



For the Win!!!!!!


Pretty much. Nothing earth shattering will come of it.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:56:43 PM EDT
No guns, turn all of them in and goto reeducation camp.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:57:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Miller-esque cop out but D.C.'s outright ban will be tossed.


And there will be a good precedent to use in other total ban situations. à la Shitcago and NY.

We aren't going to be buying M60's the next day or even the next week.

There are "reasonable" regulations on free speech and there will still (and always will be) "reasonable" regulations on firearms.

What is "reasonable" will be where the battles will be.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:58:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2007 11:01:09 PM EDT by rcr29]

Originally Posted By killswitch1982:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


I sure hope so. I do have a small glimmer of hope to see the '86 ban go buh-bye so I can buy me some MGs. I don't even mind if they keep the NFA Tax stamp system in place. It just keeps criminals from easy access to MGs. That is one restriction I don't mind.


I mind any restriction on the 2nd amendment. How does it keep criminals from easy access to MGs?

ETA: I understand that it does prevent criminal access to MGs, but so does a 4473.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:58:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By killswitch1982:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


I sure hope so. I do have a small glimmer of hope to see the '86 ban go buh-bye so I can buy me some MGs. I don't even mind if they keep the NFA Tax stamp system in place. It just keeps criminals from easy access to MGs. That is one restriction I don't mind.



The Tax issue must be addressed if they throw out the ban I believe, any lawyers in tonight?

IIRC tax stamps were used at first to combat drugs on the federal level, I believe SCOTUS at the time declred the the FEDs must make the stamp availble.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:58:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 10:59:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2007 11:10:08 PM EDT by Mattl]

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


Lets hope.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:03:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:08:39 PM EDT
I actually almost wish they let Parker stand. That was a HELL of a ruling.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:12:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."



What would make you think Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter would be on our side? Curious?
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:13:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."


I think a lot more is going to play into it than their personal feelings about guns. Despite what we like to think about judges, even the tyrants in DC, they're pretty good at following procedure. And there is a LOT of procedure on how to interpret the language of the constitution. I honestly have no idea how any of them could find this to be a collective right, given the complete lack of evidence in both the constitution and other sources.

And the normal course is to use strict scrutiny to look at constitutionally protected amendments such as the 2A. But thats not as set in stone as what the meaning of 'the people' is, for instance. So I think the fight will be over that.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:18:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."


I think a lot more is going to play into it than their personal feelings about guns. Despite what we like to think about judges, even the tyrants in DC, they're pretty good at following procedure. And there is a LOT of procedure on how to interpret the language of the constitution. I honestly have no idea how any of them could find this to be a collective right, given the complete lack of evidence in both the constitution and other sources.

And the normal course is to use strict scrutiny to look at constitutionally protected amendments such as the 2A. But thats not as set in stone as what the meaning of 'the people' is, for instance. So I think the fight will be over that.


Some years ago someone wrote an opinion on limiting the first amendment, something about yelling fire in a theatre. Limits will stand we might get outright bans struck down at best. A new MG and many conversions will make me happy but Congress will hust drive up the Tax stamp cost.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:21:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."


I think a lot more is going to play into it than their personal feelings about guns. Despite what we like to think about judges, even the tyrants in DC, they're pretty good at following procedure. And there is a LOT of procedure on how to interpret the language of the constitution. I honestly have no idea how any of them could find this to be a collective right, given the complete lack of evidence in both the constitution and other sources.

And the normal course is to use strict scrutiny to look at constitutionally protected amendments such as the 2A. But thats not as set in stone as what the meaning of 'the people' is, for instance. So I think the fight will be over that.


Some years ago someone wrote an opinion on limiting the first amendment, something about yelling fire in a theatre. Limits will stand we might get outright bans struck down at best. A new MG and many conversions will make me happy but Congress will hust drive up the Tax stamp cost.


Not yelling fire in a theater is a standard example of a reasonable limitation on the freedom of speech. Like it or not, there WILL be reasonable limitations on the 2A. Strict scrutiny will (hopefully) be used to determine if any such restriction is reasonable.

Tax stamps will not be reasonable. It's just like a poll tax, you're paying to exercise a constitutional right. An even higher tax stamp is less defensible.

Relax.
Link Posted: 12/5/2007 11:25:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."


I think a lot more is going to play into it than their personal feelings about guns. Despite what we like to think about judges, even the tyrants in DC, they're pretty good at following procedure. And there is a LOT of procedure on how to interpret the language of the constitution. I honestly have no idea how any of them could find this to be a collective right, given the complete lack of evidence in both the constitution and other sources.

And the normal course is to use strict scrutiny to look at constitutionally protected amendments such as the 2A. But thats not as set in stone as what the meaning of 'the people' is, for instance. So I think the fight will be over that.


Hope your right.
Link Posted: 12/6/2007 2:10:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Individual right and strict scrutiny.


By strict scrutiny you mean the feds still have power to regulate and tax I assume? That is a cop out is it not?


Nope.

It's wikipedia, but it will suffice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

None of those assholes can look at the 2A and NOT see that its an individual right and keep a straight face, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 9-0 ruling on that point.

The main argument, IMO, is going to be over what sort of scrutiny the courts will use when evaluating restrictions on the 2A. Strict scrutiny is the best, but we really don't know what they'll do. Hopefully Kennedy's libertarian side will win out.


I'm hope you are right. 9-0 would be a ballpark win no matter how they right it up. Perception means a LOT in this case.

I still think Breyer will not vote for Ind Right no matter what, even if he has to write a dissent that say. "I just don't like guns."




What would make you think Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter would be on our side? Curious?



Big disscussion here. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=641751&page=15


Starts about 2/3 way down the page.
Top Top