Colt Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
Again. Thank you for sharing this with us. Liberal thinking at its best. This was news to me. Much appreciated. 👍👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: milpolice2

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
Thanks











Thank you WVCOLT. Yep, strongly agree with you.
Crazy times to say the very least. We need all the help we can get !! And TY again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,131 Posts
This is a political post and it will probably be shut down soon, but just let me say hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Remember how the 3 latest want to be liked by the media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
I was always amazed at how the Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to an abortion based on the right to privacy, which appears nowhere in the text of the constitution. Rather, the court found the right to privacy hiding in the shadows of the other constititional rights. Scalia used to mock these kinds of decisions as having all the jurisprudential weight and relevance of a fortune cookie. You can mail order RU48 pills and the govt. cannot interfere with this because it would burden a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, a right that the supreme court invented out of thin air. this is to be contrasted with those State governments that are able to ban mail order ammo for a right that explicitly exists in the text of the constitution. If I recall correctly, machine guns were not banned in 1939 because the assumption at the time was that the 2A would not allow it. Rather, the plan was to put a $200 tax on them (a huge amount of money at the time) to make them so expensive nobody could afford them and not having a tax stamp was a criminal offense. By 1986, that line of thought had ended and everybody simply assumed the government could ban this, that, or the other gun at its pleasure.

With the exception of two cases, the supremes have simply been pretending like the 2A just isn’t there. I don’t have high hopes for a positive outcome in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
I have yet to get to the Supremes. They turned me down for cert and I might get back on the same case as it winds its way though the lower courts again. My best bet is that the SCOTUS will finally opine on what level of scrutiny should be given to regulations that infringe the 2A. There are different levels of scrutiny, strict, intermediate, and rational basis. Here is a primer you can read up on it. Levels of Scrutiny | Subscript Law Strict scrutiny means that the govt has to come with a life or death reason that justifies the restriction and it almost never survivies a strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny is given to govt attempts to regulate religion, free speech, etc. Some courts of appeal give strict scrutiny to 2A issues, others intermediate, and others a rational basis. The rest simply ignore this exercise.

If I had to bet the farm, the SCOTUS will not rule on a 2A right to carry. Rather, it will clarify what level of scrutiny the 2A deserves and send the case back down to the lower courts to hash it out. If it says strict scrutiny, then the govt. restrictions will be really hard to justify and the lower courts might make rulings on 2A and the RKBA as far as concealed carry goes and the issue might not ever get to the SCOTUS again. We will see. THis is my best guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,502 Posts
The Pennsylvania Constitution...ratified September 28th, 1776...predates the US Constitution's Bill of Rights which was ratified on December 15th, 1791...and states:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Period.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
223 Posts
The Pennsylvania Constitution...ratified September 28th, 1776...predates the US Constitution's Bill of Rights which was ratified on December 15th, 1791...and states:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

P eriod.
yes, and do all citizens understand the correct meaning of the words "well regulated militia"? in the 1700's, clocks were regulated by a conspicuous pendulum. a well regulated militia meant, to the founders, a co-ordinated militia, not hampered by a plethora of laws.
GOD bless america including the misguided who write and support invasive regulations (laws)!
regards, bro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
I have yet to get to the Supremes. They turned me down for cert and I might get back on the same case as it winds its way though the lower courts again. My best bet is that the SCOTUS will finally opine on what level of scrutiny should be given to regulations that infringe the 2A. There are different levels of scrutiny, strict, intermediate, and rational basis. Here is a primer you can read up on it. Levels of Scrutiny | Subscript Law Strict scrutiny means that the govt has to come with a life or death reason that justifies the restriction and it almost never survivies a strict scrutiny test. Strict scrutiny is given to govt attempts to regulate religion, free speech, etc. Some courts of appeal give strict scrutiny to 2A issues, others intermediate, and others a rational basis. The rest simply ignore this exercise.

If I had to bet the farm, the SCOTUS will not rule on a 2A right to carry. Rather, it will clarify what level of scrutiny the 2A deserves and send the case back down to the lower courts to hash it out. If it says strict scrutiny, then the govt. restrictions will be really hard to justify and the lower courts might make rulings on 2A and the RKBA as far as concealed carry goes and the issue might not ever get to the SCOTUS again. We will see. THis is my best guess.
They could rule that no level of scrutiny could save a law that is patently unconstitutional And not capable of salvation. scalia did it in Heller as far as DC’s outright ban in DC of handgun possession.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
They could rule that no level of scrutiny could save a law that is patently unconstitutional And not capable of salvation. scalia did it in Heller as far as DC’s outright ban in DC of handgun possession.
I would not expect such a ruling in the face of the current threat to “pack the court.”. I don’t think the court wants to give any more impetus to that push than it already has. If they simply rule what the level of scrutiny is, they send the case back down to be hashed out by the district court and the 2nd cir. This kicks the can down the road and keeps the court from having to make a decision that would be a lightening rod for the court. Think about it, suppose the SCOTUS says the 2A gets strict scrutiny. It may be after that the 2nd rules that restrictions on concealed carry cannot pass a strict scrutiny test. This is more or less how the 7th cir. gave IL a right to concealed carry. that case never got to the SCOTUS because it ended at the cir. ct. level. If things go this way in the 2nd cir, expect it to go the same way in the 9th. Heck, it already got that result at the 9th before Kamala Harris made questionable some legal maneuvers at the 9th as Cal’s AG to get an en banc ruling that overturned the original decision that ruled for concealed carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
I would not expect such a ruling in the face of the current threat to “pack the court.”. I don’t think the court wants to give any more impetus to that push than it already has. If they simply rule what the level of scrutiny is, they send the case back down to be hashed out by the district court and the 2nd cir. This kicks the can down the road and keeps the court from having to make a decision that would be a lightening rod for the court. Think about it, suppose the SCOTUS says the 2A gets strict scrutiny. It may be after that the 2nd rules that restrictions on concealed carry cannot pass a strict scrutiny test. This is more or less how the 7th cir. gave IL a right to concealed carry. that case never got to the SCOTUS because it ended at the cir. ct. level. If things go this way in the 2nd cir, expect it to go the same way in the 9th. Heck, it already got that result at the 9th before Kamala Harris made questionable some legal maneuvers at the 9th as Cal’s AG to get an en banc ruling that overturned the original decision that ruled for concealed carry.
Wrenn v dc held the right to protection outside the home goes to a core right. Core rights should not be parsed like, say, commercial speech is. Thomas and kavanaugh are likely on board. Roberts could shift but i don’t think it will be out of fear the ct will be packed as that is likely Rhetoric without intention or ability to act. That said, i think i am right, but its crystal ball gazing on my part to predict results. i have filed briefs in a fed cir case winning with a 3 judge panel, losing in en banc review. And have taught 2A at law school. I don’t think they will apply intermediate scrutiny and if the gun rights find majority support, expect a blistering dissent. But hey, its still like calling a horse race from the gate.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top