lemaymiami
Member
Noted lots of well thought out responses to the problem posed in this thread... My response is still "just can't wait until November..."
I think Brown is probably a good model for what we can expect, the antis playing out the last cards of a losing hand for as long as they can make it last.As you noted, resistance to USSC decisions is nothing new.
Brown vs Board of Education said separate but equal was unconstitutional. While Little Rock is the best remembered example of Federal intervention, there were battles over desegregating schools well into the 1980's....Boston for example.
No.Are we headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis over states and localities resisting the Bruen decision?
Sounds a lot like poll taxes and Jim Crow laws to me. You cannot be compelled to pay a tax or perform a task (guess the number of jelly beans in a jar) to exercise the right to vote. Nor can you be similarly compelled to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to either "keep" (possess) or "bear" (carry) arms.I'm all for training but it's being used for a block. Same with insurance.
I would answer: (Probably, yes.) And why, you ask?Could a sitting Governor be served a warrant to Appear to answer for Contempt charges?
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Of course. Does anyone else see the irony in that the same groups that protest mightily the concept of requiring government-issued identification in order to vote are the exact same groups strongly in favor of prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms anywhere in public while supporting taxes and fees that make it almost impossible for low-income folks (and a huge percentage of minority citizens) to buy firearms and obtain licenses to carry?Sounds a lot like poll taxes and Jim Crow laws to me. You cannot be compelled to pay a tax or perform a task (guess the number of jelly beans in a jar) to exercise the right to vote. Nor can you be similarly compelled to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights to either "keep" (possess) or "bear" (carry) arms.
Well, the other side of the coin is that after Brown (and subsequent to other decisions and legislation, i.e., Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act) that during those periods a majority of the country understood these were actual civil rights, and the right thing to do was obvious. There were pockets of dissent and resistance, but Congress and the Presidents took a stand.Eisenhower was willing to use federal troops to break the resistance. We may see something remotely equivalent in Bruen, though I have no idea what form that would take.
Could a sitting Governor be served a warrant to Appear to answer for Contempt charges?
As things stand now, we don't have close to a majority of folks in the U.S. that see the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right, nor do enough people understand the history and intent of the 2nd Amendment. There's little U.S. History taught in our public schools now, no "social studies," American Government or Civics, either. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Our big hope now is that enough folks are alarmed by the rising violent crime rates nationwide to take a harder look at whether or not gun control works.
It is my understanding that there is no immunity for violation of the People's civil rights, either as a whole or individually. When a court decides a state has violated an individual's rights, the state is held liable by way of legal fees, damages and punitive damages. Sort of what happened in New Jersey where the state was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and costs.governors have sovereignty immunity for acts he or she makes in their official capacity as governor.
Actually not in states where anti-gun laws are being written and passed and openly "resisted" as expressed by OPWhat's this talk about "minority" rights? The people that value guns are actually a majority in this country.
states and localities resisting the Bruen decision?
They have already lost a lot over their intransigent gun position and I suspect they're going to lose a lot more before they ever see any kind of dividends from their investment. Losing their majority in the supreme court is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for many years to come which is why I think they'll try to pack the court. It's really their only move.The Democrats are making a huge mistake by not realizing this. By their gun stance, they are alienating a significant number of their traditional supporters. The media don't talk about this, but it's a main reason why the Democrats have lost their former blue-collar base.
What's this talk about "minority" rights?
Well, it's a sign we are borrowing Benitez's usage, referring to CA in specific.What's this talk about "minority" rights?
Um you might be able to hold the state responsible IDK that is beyond my pay grade but not the governor them self. Unlike qualified immunity like police have where the immunity is supposed to be qualified, the sovereign immunity governors have is pretty much absolute as long as they are acting in their official capacity. Only thing you could really do is impeach which is a political process not a legal one.It is my understanding that there is no immunity for violation of the People's civil rights, either as a whole or individually. When a court decides a state has violated an individual's rights, the state is held liable by way of legal fees, damages and punitive damages. Sort of what happened in New Jersey where the state was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and costs.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.452993/gov.uscourts.njd.452993.51.0.pdf
I don't follow your arithmetic. The way I figure it, a "minority" is anything less than 50% of the whole. So, in your example, if law-abiding people are 88% of the population, that amounts to an overwhelming majority.Criminality is, at most, 11% of a given population. So, the "law abiding" are a minority of the entire population, despite being more than 88% of that population.
I notice that you substituted "governor" for my "state" in your post. It's not the same thing.Um you might be able to hold the state responsible IDK that is beyond my pay grade but not the governor them self. Unlike qualified immunity like police have where the immunity is supposed to be qualified, the sovereign immunity governors have is pretty much absolute as long as they are acting in their official capacity. Only thing you could really do is impeach which is a political process not a legal one.It is my understanding that there is no immunity for violation of the People's civil rights, either as a whole or individually. When a court decides a state has violated an individual's rights, the state is held liable by way of legal fees, damages and punitive damages. Sort of what happened in New Jersey where the state was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and costs.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.452993/gov.uscourts.njd.452993.51.0.pdf