SCOTUS Signals Interest In CA Gun Seizure Case
bearingarms.com
SCOTUS Signals Interest In CA Gun Seizure Case
- Thread starter nortatoga
- Start date
bearingarms.com
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Guns & Gadgets says NYSPRA v NYC likely to be determined 1st. Could impact this case. C-19 probably slowed all deliberations.
Wait - the exact same imbeciles that spew that seven years is too long for justice - want reparations for slaves over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO ?
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
where is Ruth ??
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
This is huge guys. Huge!!
Reason being this below. Of this is allowed to stand they can just knock on your door and confiscate your guns no warrant. So NYC doesn’t want guns in NYC anyone with a gun permit can get a knock at the door and your guns are gone with no recourse. Remember in NYC you need a permit for all guns not just pistols. This can not be allowed to stand.
Rodriguez also claimed in her federal lawsuit that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated, which was a claim she did not raise in her original litigation in state court, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the warrantless seizure of the firearms didn’t violate her due process rights.
Reason being this below. Of this is allowed to stand they can just knock on your door and confiscate your guns no warrant. So NYC doesn’t want guns in NYC anyone with a gun permit can get a knock at the door and your guns are gone with no recourse. Remember in NYC you need a permit for all guns not just pistols. This can not be allowed to stand.
Rodriguez also claimed in her federal lawsuit that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated, which was a claim she did not raise in her original litigation in state court, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the warrantless seizure of the firearms didn’t violate her due process rights.
@thewheels
.308 Win
And finally somebody at Scrotus decides it's time to take a peek. Maybe. Maybe not.
The courts won't fix this shit. EVER.
96coal449
.308 Win
All be told, this sure is a strange time line of events .......
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
WTF kind of idiotic logic is this? Oh, wait.... California.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
So this is why SCOTUS took it on. because it's a very safe case.
Nothing on constitutional carry or rifles (of course).
Doesn't matter... SCOTUS has no teeth!
Massachusetts has already been flogged verbally for not following it guidance on the Stun Gun ban! And...?
Nothing changes until the SCOTUS rules on the scrutiny of the 2A as absolute! Even then, it'll take years and years of challenges and complete outright ignorance with intent by municipalities!
Massachusetts has already been flogged verbally for not following it guidance on the Stun Gun ban! And...?
Nothing changes until the SCOTUS rules on the scrutiny of the 2A as absolute! Even then, it'll take years and years of challenges and complete outright ignorance with intent by municipalities!
U.S. top court throws out Massachusetts stun gun ruling
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Massachusetts court ruling that stun guns are not covered by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms, siding with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.
www.reuters.com
Massachusetts top court declares stun gun ban unconstitutional
The top court in Massachusetts on Tuesday struck down a state law that banned civilians from possessing stun guns, ruling unanimously that the law violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which protects Americans' right to bear arms.
www.reuters.com
For your reading pleasure!!
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I always say liberal logic is no logic at all!!
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Would need to ask someone from Massachusetts. SCOTUS sent it back to them as per the second link!
This case also violate's this SCOTUS ruling!
en.wikipedia.org
Henderson v. United States (2015) - Wikipedia
U.S. top court throws out Massachusetts stun gun ruling
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Massachusetts court ruling that stun guns are not covered by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms, siding with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.
Massachusetts top court declares stun gun ban unconstitutional
The top court in Massachusetts on Tuesday struck down a state law that banned civilians from possessing stun guns, ruling unanimously that the law violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which protects Americans' right to bear arms.
For your reading pleasure!!
Not sure why you would provide links to something I already noted! And my point entirely is they made a ruling regarding the Constitutionality of the State court(s) ignoring previous SCOTUS guidance!
And what did they do? Did they vacate the verdict? Tell me what they did...!?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
They sent it "Back" to the State, for them to fix it... (ie, No Teeth)
Enjoy
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Not sure why you would provide links to something I already noted! And my point entirely is they made a ruling regarding the Constitutionality of the State court(s) ignoring previous SCOTUS guidance!
And what did they do? Did they vacate the verdict? Tell me what they did...!?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
They sent it "Back" to the State, for them to fix it... (ie, No Teeth)
Enjoy
Uhm, that's kind of... how it works.
Kinda how this worked.....
www.nbcnews.com
Supreme Court sends gay wedding cake dispute back to state courts
The Oregon case raises the same issues as a Colorado baker a year ago who refused to provide a custom cake for the wedding of two men.
www.nbcnews.com
Gay wedding cake case is a staged case. It doesn't make any sense. Would you eat something baked by someone who hates you? How stupid do they think people are?
They love rendering decisions which have no effect on the real world. They stood up for our right to refuse baking cakes, give them a medal.
They love rendering decisions which have no effect on the real world. They stood up for our right to refuse baking cakes, give them a medal.
This had to do with the SCOTUS sending a case back to the State Court!!
As to your first sentence, * Would you eat something baked by someone who hates you?* What make you think hate had anything to do with the Baker refusing to make the cake?
Normal people hate those who want to force them to do something they don't want to do.
Okay you say so! Your first post.. * Normal people hate those who sue them. * Funny stuff there!!
Let's see if San Jose now returns the firearms to Ms. Rodriguez. to try and moot this case?
www.lawenforcementtoday.com
Supreme Court orders San Jose police to justify seizing woman's guns and refusing to return them
In 2003, Lori Rodriguez's husband was taken for psychological evaluation. Despite her being the legal owner of firearms in the home, her guns were seized without a warrant and police are refusing to turn them back to her.
www.lawenforcementtoday.com
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Serious issue. They said NY's tazer ban is not legal. But it's still on the books, and you'll still be arrested most likely if you're found with one.
Very close to zero effort put in by the state to address. They just simply ignore it. Don't care.