NJ assault weapons ban ruled unconstitutional but standard magazine restrictions ruling upheld

[RooftopKorean]

Naw.... sounds like standard capacity, or reduced capacity, to me.

No, but you can only carry a horn of black powder to half capacity and not full

Whomp whomp.

 

[RedBreast21]

Not my words, but the exact words used in Article 111, section 11 of the constitution of the United States.
The SCOTUS was specifically formed to keep states from overreach and hurting the nation.
And nowhere did I even suggest that the SCOTUS "creates law".
My very words convey that they support the constitution and our founding fathers ideas for this nation and interpret the constitution when inferior courts get it wrong.... by accident or on purpose.
From Article 111 section 11
"The compromise was that, just as the Constitution and federal laws would be the “supreme Law of the Land,” there would definitely be a Supreme Court—so a court created by the federal government, with judges appointed by the President, would get the last word, in case state courts did something that was too threatening to the new nation. But the extent and shape of the rest of the federal court system—the degree to which the federal government would be present around the nation—would get hashed out in day-to-day politics. The result is the large and powerful federal judiciary we have today."

The appointment of a justice to the Supreme court is by a President but confirmed by the Senate.

You stated that court was the supreme law of the land. It is not. It doesn't create law nor subjugate the other two equal branches of govt. It rules on existing laws passed by the representative branch and signed by the executive branch. When a challenge is brought before the court as to the constitutionality of a law, it is suppose to apply the Constitution to the law to make sure it is in line.

That's all.

If there are conflicting circuit court ruling of the similar cases, then the issue is fast tracked to the court. I only know of the NY's ban and the 2nd circuit court will have to rule once the case is presented. It can follow NJ or it can conflict, then its onto the Supreme Court. Where it will be either 5-4 or likely 6-3 decision in throwing out the ban. Now the magazine count is another issue of course. lol

 

[Apeman]

We know this is all bullshit and scotus needs to step in and tell these states to stop. NY is a perfect example of this horseshit. They allowed pre-ban 30 round mags after the assault weapon ban ended up until the safe act and then you can't have any. That shows a history of allowing them so they can't ban them now. Also wtf difference is a metal 1990 mag vs a 2010 polymer mag? This shit should've been fixed by the courts right after NY screwed us.

 

[Grimscale]

I only know of the NY's ban and the 2nd circuit court will have to rule once the case is presented.

I seem to recall the case had been presented a while ago.
Still waiting on the 2nd.

It should be that if the court doesn't rule within a specific amount of time the law is automatically thrown out.

 

[Cooolone]

Bruen... Any two tiered encumbrances are unconstitutional! The simple fact of bearing arms "Shall Not Be Infringed"... Is pretty clearly written with explicit instructions!

Training, good cause and any restriction on accessories, function or whatnot should all be considered bullshit and unconstitutional. Because I'm sure when the Minute Men were lining up opposite the Redcoats, they would've rejected a semi auto 100 round holding firearm... Lol on principle of course!

Anyways, back to our regular programming!

 

[Criticalt]

The appointment of a justice to the Supreme court is by a President but confirmed by the Senate.

You stated that court was the supreme law of the land. It is not. It doesn't create law nor subjugate the other two equal branches of govt. It rules on existing laws passed by the representative branch and signed by the executive branch. When a challenge is brought before the court as to the constitutionality of a law, it is suppose to apply the Constitution to the law to make sure it is in line.

That's all.

If there are conflicting circuit court ruling of the similar cases, then the issue is fast tracked to the court. I only know of the NY's ban and the 2nd circuit court will have to rule once the case is presented. It can follow NJ or it can conflict, then its onto the Supreme Court. Where it will be either 5-4 or likely 6-3 decision in throwing out the ban. Now the magazine count is another issue of course. lol

Are you serious?
The reason the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land is exactly what you just said.
Absolutely nowhere did I even suggest that they make laws, nowhere.
I am pretty versed in this stuff for a couple decades.
Did you read what I posted?
The constitution literally calls the SCOTUS the "supreme law of the land"......in multiple places. Like you said, when there is a circuit split, the case is fast tracked to the court for them to interpret the constitutionally of the case and make a FINAL and SUPREME decision....... hence, the " Supreme law of the land", EXACTLY what the constitution says in plain English.
Where do you believe I said the SCOTUS "makes" laws.....I find no place where that could even be suggested.
Again, like YOU said, when the inferior courts have a split on THEIR interpretation of the constitution with regards to a court case, which supports a law that can put people in jail, the SCOTUS steps in and makes a final decision based on THEIR interpretation of the constitution with regards to the court case.
So, After a legislature makes a law, and inferior courts upholds the law, the SCOTUS steps in and either upholds the law, or eliminates the law.......hence, they are the final decision.... Period........the supreme law of the land.
So unless our founding fathers, Erwin Chemerinsky, Mark Smith, Sanford Levingston, Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Ted Cruz, Anthony Miranda, Anton Scalia and dozens of other constitutional scholars are wrong, the SCOTUS is the Supreme law of the land, just like Article 3 Section 2 of the constitution clearly states.....using the exact words.......Supreme law of the land.
You are wrong on this one in more than one way.
First, absolutely nowhere did I even suggest the SCOTUS MAKES laws. Ive known the role of the SCOTUS sinse I was a small child, for over 40 years. I would NEVER suggest they MAKE laws.....ever. My dad was/is a very knowledgeable guy who taught his kids well.
And, the SCOTUS is considered "the supreme law of the land" in the constitution of the USA, in many other writings from our founding and through the following centuries and cited by ALL of the top constitutional scholars over the last 200+ years. This isn't even a debate. The founders set up a court to be the SLOTL to protect our country from ambitious legislators.....its in the god damn constitution!
I do not believe you understand the meaning of the term.
"The supreme law of the land" just means that the SCOTUS gets the final say and THEIR interpretation of the constitution in regards to laws/rules is the final say and must be followed.
Try this.......
Go to the Harvard law papers website.
Search for the term "supreme law of the land".
You will find a LOT of writings and places where this term is used in regards to the SCOTUS.......or, you can just keep saying im wrong and keep saying that I said the SCOTUS makes laws.....which is absurd and verifiably incorrect.

 

[Acer-m14]

the Constitution is the law of the land not SCOTUS

where did Qualified Immunity come from .. SCOTUS

Thank God that they just got rid of Chevron Deference they made up also ..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws in the United States need to follow the Constitution.

Preparing For The Oath: U.S. History And Civics For Citizenship

Learn and Practice for the U.S. Naturalization Test. From the National Museum of American History and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

americanhistory.si.edu

 

[Rap]

I've never heard of SCOTUS referred to as the supreme law of the land. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court has the authority to decide if laws are unconstitutional. Article VI of the Constitution establishes it as the supreme law, and all laws in the United States must (in theory) follow it. SCOTUS might be more accurately called the supreme lawyers of the land.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2/

 

[JunkBoxFull]

Could we see a day where 2A is removed? Yes. With every generation that gets indoctrinated. The fight gentlemen, isn't bullets. It's a fight of ideas, truths and the minds of the young.

PHUCKING BULLSEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS, is EXACTLY what i`ve been saying for DECADES!!!!!!!!!! But what the phuck do i know! The phucking 1960`s hippies phucked everything up. They phucked up the minds of the young. The hippies got into politics, then took over, and PHUCKED YOUR KIDS MINDS UP!!!! We`ve been losing for DECADES! And nobody phucking cared. So here we are! Eventually, the constitution AND this country, ARE going down. Because nobody cared, and nobody would listen. Ok now, go put your phucking nose back into your cellphones now and keep ignoring truths and realities all around you.

 

[RedBreast21]

Are you serious?
The reason the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land is exactly what you just said.
Absolutely nowhere did I even suggest that they make laws, nowhere.
I am pretty versed in this stuff for a couple decades.
Did you read what I posted?
The constitution literally calls the SCOTUS the "supreme law of the land"......in multiple places. Like you said, when there is a circuit split, the case is fast tracked to the court for them to interpret the constitutionally of the case and make a FINAL and SUPREME decision....... hence, the " Supreme law of the land", EXACTLY what the constitution says in plain English.
Where do you believe I said the SCOTUS "makes" laws.....I find no place where that could even be suggested.
Again, like YOU said, when the inferior courts have a split on THEIR interpretation of the constitution with regards to a court case, which supports a law that can put people in jail, the SCOTUS steps in and makes a final decision based on THEIR interpretation of the constitution with regards to the court case.
So, After a legislature makes a law, and inferior courts upholds the law, the SCOTUS steps in and either upholds the law, or eliminates the law.......hence, they are the final decision.... Period........the supreme law of the land.
So unless our founding fathers, Erwin Chemerinsky, Mark Smith, Sanford Levingston, Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Ted Cruz, Anthony Miranda, Anton Scalia and dozens of other constitutional scholars are wrong, the SCOTUS is the Supreme law of the land, just like Article 3 Section 2 of the constitution clearly states.....using the exact words.......Supreme law of the land.
You are wrong on this one in more than one way.
First, absolutely nowhere did I even suggest the SCOTUS MAKES laws. Ive known the role of the SCOTUS sinse I was a small child, for over 40 years. I would NEVER suggest they MAKE laws.....ever. My dad was/is a very knowledgeable guy who taught his kids well.
And, the SCOTUS is considered "the supreme law of the land" in the constitution of the USA, in many other writings from our founding and through the following centuries and cited by ALL of the top constitutional scholars over the last 200+ years. This isn't even a debate. The founders set up a court to be the SLOTL to protect our country from ambitious legislators.....its in the god damn constitution!
I do not believe you understand the meaning of the term.
"The supreme law of the land" just means that the SCOTUS gets the final say and THEIR interpretation of the constitution in regards to laws/rules is the final say and must be followed.
Try this.......
Go to the Harvard law papers website.
Search for the term "supreme law of the land".
You will find a LOT of writings and places where this term is used in regards to the SCOTUS.......or, you can just keep saying im wrong and keep saying that I said the SCOTUS makes laws.....which is absurd and verifiably incorrect.

The confusion happened with your use of "...supreme law of the land" a reference in the constitution as you now claim vs claiming it as your own in the text which in plain English today, means that you believe the court creates law. You did not make that clear in your OP.

To a strict constitutionalist, without any pre-context that statement implies the courts role is to create laws that are supreme in context of other laws. I always, for context, cite any part of the constitution or make clear the reference to, so as not to confuse others. English back then and English today are very different. I don't like to switch between the two, but use plain modern English, only citing older references when needed.

Anyway, a SCOTUS court ruling on the constitutionality of a law as written, isn't by no means the end. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it simple either goes back to Congress to address the parts that are deemed unconstitutional or it dies in place. The brute power in our Republic is with the Congress. Congress holds the power to change the Constitution. Congress can throw out the Govt. Throw out the court. But there are procedures that have to be followed if it is to be deemed lawful under the Constitution. Congress has this power as it is closets to the people of the Republic.

 

[Criticalt]

The confusion happened with your use of "...supreme law of the land" a reference in the constitution as you now claim vs claiming it as your own in the text which in plain English today, means that you believe the court creates law. You did not make that clear in your OP.

To a strict constitutionalist, without any pre-context that statement implies the courts role is to create laws that are supreme in context of other laws. I always, for context, cite any part of the constitution or make clear the reference to, so as not to confuse others. English back then and English today are very different. I don't like to switch between the two, but use plain modern English, only citing older references when needed.

Anyway, a SCOTUS court ruling on the constitutionality of a law as written, isn't by no means the end. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, it simple either goes back to Congress to address the parts that are deemed unconstitutional or it dies in place. The brute power in our Republic is with the Congress. Congress holds the power to change the Constitution. Congress can throw out the Govt. Throw out the court. But there are procedures that have to be followed if it is to be deemed lawful under the Constitution. Congress has this power as it is closets to the people of the Republic.

Word salad nonsense does not help your cause.