More pressure on SCOTUS to hear Maryland AWB

[GuyMontag]

You expect people , regardless of their political affiliation, to make judgments or issue rulings based on an emotionless interpretation of text.

I'm saying that's one hell of an expectation.

Proof positive that you haven't a clue what the canon of ethics for judges requires of it's members.

 

[Marine Cpl]

He is saying that judges are human and therefor fallible. They are not supposed to make rulings based on emotion or activism, but the trend has unfortunately been in that direction. I think you guys agree on this.

Yes I do and it's wrong. So you cannot quote rulings as if that was what the founders intended.

 

[Chuck D]

My final comments as I leave this exercise in futility.

I hope they overturn the Maryland AWB and restore stolen rights. I hope magazine capacity is restored as well.

I believe that combining the 2 issues is a losing proposition. Lets get the AWB overturned then work on the mag cap ban. Little bites, one victory at a time.

I believe that Judges are human and fall prey to the same pitfalls and temptations as the rest of us. If you think they don't, well there isn't much I can add to the discussion that would change your mind.

If we are to move forward and experience successes, we have to understand how we got here in the first place.

I also believe that this discussion went from an honest exchange of ideas to a trolling festival.

 

[GuyMontag]

Here's Chuck's assertion regarding the Judiciary being put to the test.

“My job is to apply the law that you write. The law as written said he would be protected if he refused to operate. By any plain understanding, he operated the vehicle,” Gorsuch continued. “I said it was an unkind decision, I said it might have been a wrong decision, a bad decision, but my job isn’t to write the law, senator, it’s to apply the law. If congress passes a law saying the trucker in those circumstances gets to choose how to operate his vehicle, I’ll be the first in line to enforce it. “

 

[Marine Cpl]

My final comments as I leave this exercise in futility.

I hope they overturn the Maryland AWB and restore stolen rights. I hope magazine capacity is restored as well.

I believe that combining the 2 issues is a losing proposition. Lets get the AWB overturned then work on the mag cap ban. Little bites, one victory at a time.

I believe that Judges are human and fall prey to the same pitfalls and temptations as the rest of us. If you think they don't, well there isn't much I can add to the discussion that would change your mind.

If we are to move forward and experience successes, we have to understand how we got here in the first place.

I also believe that this discussion went from an honest exchange of ideas to a trolling festival.

Who here is arguing what should and shouldn't be tackled? That's not the issue here. The issue here is Constitutionality and whether a judge should rule based on it without emotion.

 

[@thewheels]

So if they make 1 round magazines for hunting, will those be the standard?

How about rubber bullets? The feds ban lead, copper solids and every other substance other than rubber for any projectile.
Manufactures would respond of course and produce, ship and sell rubber bullet ammo all over the country to stay in business.
Are lead bullets protected and covered in the 2a? Rubber bullets would be the standard. We wouldn't call that an infringement? After all what good is a rubber bullet unless it hits a BG in the nuts?
I guaran damn tee that courts would uphold it based on their previous mental wranglings. And the courts collude with the legislature. They aren't and certainly weren't intended to be the bulwark of defense for the people against the crazy shit that spews from congress. Yeah yeah, I know that bed time story about checks and balances.

Legally speaking, the 2a has never had a grand slam. In and of itself it was intended to BE the grand slam. The game should have NEVER been started. 2a wins everybody...go home now.
Also, the 2a has never scored any runs. It's gotten some intentional walks and the odd occasional single but it remains scoreless as the other team runs up the score.
The supposedly objective umps play for the other team and the discussion of strategy continues? The 2a isn't getting its ass kicked because of incorrect strategies, not enough money or misguided lawyers.
It's getting its ass kicked because the game was rigged a long time ago,still is and the other team cheats, juices and secretly changes the rules to suit itself.

BTW, The same team that's kicking the 2a's ass is also whooping on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 10th.............
As far as applying pressure to SCOTUS to hear the case, rats asses should not be given. So they decide to hear the case? Changes little.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Yes I do and it's wrong. So you cannot quote rulings as if that was what the founders intended.

I don't think he was trying to say that Heller or any other modern ruling was what the founders intent was. I think he quoted rullings to show what the legal (be it constitutional or not) landscape looks like currently and was giving an opinion on how he thinks is best to reverse bad law based on where we are now. I think you guys both agree that magazines should be protected, you just disagree with how we should go about it in the courts.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't think he was trying to say that Heller or any other modern ruling was what the founders intent was. I think he quoted rullings to show what the legal (be it constitutional or not) landscape looks like currently and was giving an opinion on how he thinks is best to reverse bad law based on where we are now. I think you guys both agree that magazines should be protected, you just disagree with how we should go about it in the courts.

I have no opinion either way on how to go about it in the courts. My only disagreement was that magazines are indeed protected under the 2A. That's it. If you go back and read my posts, that's the only argument you'll see from me.

 

[Robin]

I got some baggy pants and now my scrotus is fine.
Robin Gonad

 

[Cooolone]

Is amazing how you can post in plain sight, plain english, exactly what the problem is...

And people glaze over, and revert to their comfort zone of what they know, or think they do (Dunning Kruger), but at the same time, argue superficial elements that have no bearing upon the issue at hand!

But yeah, I'll play! Get Congress to enact a Law, granting the ability to exercise a Right already given. There is no law higher in the land than the Constitution, and yet, today, it's a mere reference manual for those looking to achieve an agenda!

Absolute "Strict" scrutiny to the entire "Bill of Rights" and don't accept anything less. And not a piece at a time, dribbles and dabs... Recognize the document that's responsible for our current form of Gov't and stop pissing all over it!

 

[Bob]

I'm going to blow the dust off this thread, just to add an update for those who may be interested.

There have been eight amicus curae briefs, all in support of the petitioner (Kolbe)
The Respondents (State of Maryland) filed a brief in opposition that is a joke at best.
Petitioners have filed a rebuttal to Maryland's opposition brief, which I have not yet been able to read.

The case has been distributed for Conference of 11/9. We could find out as soon as two weeks from now if SCOTUS is going to take the case.

 

[hoodfu]

I'm going to blow the dust off this thread, just to add an update for those who may be interested.

There have been eight amicus curae briefs, all in support of the petitioner (Kolbe)
The Respondents (State of Maryland) filed a brief in opposition that is a joke at best.
Petitioners have filed a rebuttal to Maryland's opposition brief, which I have not yet been able to read.

The case has been distributed for Conference of 11/9. We could find out as soon as two weeks from now if SCOTUS is going to take the case.

I don't remember the specifics of this. Is there currently a circuit split?

 

[livingston]

I'm going to blow the dust off this thread, just to add an update for those who may be interested.

There have been eight amicus curae briefs, all in support of the petitioner (Kolbe)
The Respondents (State of Maryland) filed a brief in opposition that is a joke at best.
Petitioners have filed a rebuttal to Maryland's opposition brief, which I have not yet been able to read.

The case has been distributed for Conference of 11/9. We could find out as soon as two weeks from now if SCOTUS is going to take the case.

Thank you keep us in the loop

 

[Bob]

I don't remember the specifics of this. Is there currently a circuit split?

One of the questions posed in Kolbe is that of the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply. For that question, there is clearly a split. Once circuit has stated that strict scrutiny applies. A couple have stated that intermediate scrutiny applies. And at least one other circuit (maybe two?) has essentially made up it's own level of scrutiny. This question certainly needs to be resolved, and soon.

In some of the other questions posed, the splits are not so clear.

 

[Acer-m14]

come on Ruth .. bed time ...

 

[Cooolone]

One of the questions posed in Kolbe is that of the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply. For that question, there is clearly a split. Once circuit has stated that strict scrutiny applies. A couple have stated that intermediate scrutiny applies. And at least one other circuit (maybe two?) has essentially made up it's own level of scrutiny. This question certainly needs to be resolved, and soon.

In some of the other questions posed, the splits are not so clear.

As I stated in my earlier post...

Scrutiny, applied as a convenience, is the root of all the problems concerning our so called "Constitutional" Rights. Let alone the discrepancies of application whereas different levels of scrutiny are applied to different Amendments!

The SCOTUS itself needs to be challenged on this question! Because when they apply the different levels of scrutiny, they themselves are changing the Constitution!

Thank you for the update...

 

[Chuck D]

I'm not certain if anyone has actually taken a look at the Maryland ban in detail but it's a soup sandwich.

You can't purchase an AR-15 in .223/5.56 unless it's of H-BAR configuration (heavy barrel) and it MUST say so by being stamped at the factory as "H-BAR" or "Heavy Barrel."

You can buy a lower receiver and build your own as long as it has the Heavy Barrel and keeps only 1 feature ex. pistol grip.

30 round mags can't be sold in the State but hop on over to PA and buy what you want and bring 'em home worry free.

If it's in .308 caliber, you have multiple options to choose from right off the dealer's shelves.

I have an opportunity to move there. How screwed up is it that I can own better equipped AR rifles in Md. than I can in NYS.

 

[kev74]

I have an opportunity to move there. How screwed up is it that I can own better equipped AR rifles in Md. than I can in NYS.

It doesn't surprise me in the least. We're tied with CA in screwing up the country. MD is second string at best.

 

[JosERW]

One of the questions posed in Kolbe is that of the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply. For that question, there is clearly a split. Once circuit has stated that strict scrutiny applies. A couple have stated that intermediate scrutiny applies. And at least one other circuit (maybe two?) has essentially made up it's own level of scrutiny. This question certainly needs to be resolved, and soon.

In some of the other questions posed, the splits are not so clear.

What court stated strict scrutiny applies? The 4th overturned that decision enbanc. Believe me, I want this case to go more than anything else but I doubt it will happen. SCOTUS has no balls.

This state has sucked every drop of hope out of me.

 

[Acer-m14]

SCOTUS need a few to drop off first ..
“My answer is as long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg told supporters at an Equal Justice Works event.

i guess sleeping on the job is a-Okay ... wish i could ...

Justice Ginsburg: I Will Not Retire from the Supreme Court Anytime Soon - Breitbart

 

[Phazer]

Just came across this 2013 video from testimony in Maryland:

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

SCOTUS need a few to drop off first ..
“My answer is as long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg told supporters at an Equal Justice Works event.

i guess sleeping on the job is a-Okay ... wish i could ...

Justice Ginsburg: I Will Not Retire from the Supreme Court Anytime Soon - Breitbart

At what point should there be a serious discussion about arguably the most important decisions in the country being handled by someone who certainly has lost mental clarity and more likely is becoming senile.

Lifetime terms for supreme court are not as good as they sound.

At some point there should be mandatory retirement.

Look at airplane pilots they have mandatory retirement because their physical skills, focus and mental clarity can degrade as they age.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

This is a perfectly clear and well thought out explanation for my thoughts on this issue.

I dare say this may be some of the finest writing in history. Hopefully many here will recognize these words.


That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

 

[Phazer]

This is a perfectly clear and well thought out explanation for my thoughts on this issue.

I dare say this may be some of the finest writing in history. Hopefully many here will recognize these words.


That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Words that are timeless and apply as well now as the day they were written.

 

[Acer-m14]

This is a perfectly clear and well thought out explanation for my thoughts on this issue.

I dare say this may be some of the finest writing in history. Hopefully many here will recognize these words.


That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

can't recall the name .. but that is why we have the 2A ....