Constitutional Crisis?

[LiveLife]

And district court judge Sinatra just issued preliminary injunction after granting temporary restraining order for Hardaway v Negrelli - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-new-york-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban

 

[TomVA]

And district court judge Sinatra just issued preliminary injunction after granting temporary restraining order for Hardaway v Negrelli - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-new-york-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban

Beautifully written decision! Another piece of New York's defiance dissembled.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

President Andrew Jackson refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision regarding native lands in Georgia, saying something to the effect of they've made their decision, let's see them enforce it. Are we on a similar path now?

The case was Worcester vs Georgia, and it was about a state law requiring White men living among the Indians to have a state license. It had nothing to do with native lands, nor with removing the Indians to the Indian Territory. And Jackson made no such comment. Georgia refused to comply with the court ruling (to release Worcester and his companions from prison) and the Supreme Court did NOT ask Jackson for US Marshalls to enforce it's ruling.

The reason was Jackson already had his hands full with the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and to use force against Georgia, too, could have precipitated a civil war. So the Court used persuasion, and Jackson worked under the table.

In a letter to John Coffee, he discussed the problem, "The court's ruling seems to have died a-borning, and the Court will have difficulty enforcing it's decision."

 

[CapnMac]

I don't follow your arithmetic.

It's not arithmetic, per se. It's more linguistic, which is "per le" in the law.

In math, clearly 88 > 11, thus 88 is "major" of the two.
Under the law, that's expressed as a different fraction.
"The People" being 100, thus 100 > 88, and the 88 is a "minority"

Your point remains valid, arithmetically, as 88/10 > 11/100.

Not all of The People are Firearms Owners, therefore, legally, 100 > FO, and Firearm Owners are a "minority" of the Whole. (Law Abiding FO are a further of the "whole" of Firearm possessors, too.)

This is a crucial legal distinction in terms of majority rule and minority rights. Laws that only affect firearms owners have no effect upon non- firearms owners (histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding). Therefore the law must--in the proper spirit of legal interpretation--carefully examine how that minorities' rights are affected. Which is a key aspect of how the 14th Amendment is considered.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is a crucial legal distinction in terms of majority rule and minority rights. Laws that only affect firearms owners have no effect upon non- firearms owners (histrionics to the contrary notwithstanding). Therefore the law must--in the proper spirit of legal interpretation--carefully examine how that minorities' rights are affected. Which is a key aspect of how the 14th Amendment is considered.

I never encountered this concept in my legal education. It's really quite simple -- a "minority" is anything less than 50% of the whole. If, say, gun owners represent 60% of the total adult population (a not-unreasonable assumption, at least in some parts of the country), then they're a majority. Now, giving due weight to identifiable interest groups -- whether they be minorities or majorities -- is another issue entirely.

 

[LiveLife]

Regarding majority imposition on minority gun owner rights, I keep it simple.

In states where anti-gun right laws are passed, representation of gun owners at state assembly/senate is minority hence why majority of law makers representing the population voted to pass anti-gun right laws.

So wherever anti-gun right laws are passed, it is majority imposing on minority gun rights in violation of the Second Amendment and why the SCOTUS ruled for Bruen and took away the two-step approch for the Second Amendment as it is not a "second class" right.

Same goes for slavery and women not being able to vote in the past. Their representation was in the minority and why the majority was allowed to impose on their rights and thankfully, these injustices were corrected and they are no longer treated as second class citizens.

In the same manner, if mob majority is allowed to impose on the 2A rights of minority gun owners, then gun owners are essentially being treated as second class citizens and that is illegal.

 

[AlexanderA]

In states where anti-gun right laws are passed, representation of gun owners at state assembly/senate is minority hence why majority of law makers representing the population voted to pass anti-gun right laws.

So wherever anti-gun right laws are passed, it is majority imposing on minority gun rights in violation of the Second Amendment and why the SCOTUS ruled for Bruen and took away the two-step approch for the Second Amendment as it is not a "second class" right.

It's a little more complicated than that. In a given state, gun owners as a whole might be a majority, but activist, engaged gun owners (those that actually vote on the issue) might be a minority. Thus, you have to factor out the Fudds and the casual gun owners. Those casual gun owners get awakened only when confiscation of their guns is imminent.

Also, guns are a bit of a sub rosa issue. That is, it lurks below the surface. There are a lot of people for whom the idea of being able to own a gun is important, even if they don't currently own one. This is especially true of the working, blue collar class. Guns are a symbol of their personal autonomy, even though they might feel downtrodden in other areas such as the economy.

If the Democrats continue pushing the gun control fetish, they're going to continue reaping nasty surprises at the ballot box. The gun issue is a very important part of the party realignment in this country. But not many pundits talk about this.

 

[LiveLife]

If the Democrats continue pushing the gun control fetish, they're going to continue reaping nasty surprises at the ballot box. The gun issue is a very important part of the party realignment in this country.

I listen to NPR and other "liberal" radio shows sporadically and the notion of "gun culture" for US changing, crossing party lines to where increasing number of gun ownership (over 20 to 36 million guns sold annually last few years on top of 100 million sold past decade) related perhaps to defunding of police/homelessness/drugs and gang related crime has been mentioned.

And each time, hosts and guests are increasingly bringing up the fact that gun ownership is becoming less and less partisan and more personal/self-defense related rights issue along with younger GenZ/GenAlpha approaching gun ownership differently than GenX/Millennials having experienced school/mass shootings as "normal" part of life.

They talked about the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling removing the two-step approach and the challenges states will have in justifying their anti-gun laws and how that will effect gun-control measures and having to carefully craft future bills moving forward. Some have pointed out with increasing number of gun ownership, simply being "anti-gun" may not be politically sound rather focusing more on "sensible gun control to enhance gun safety".

When Associated Press provided new guidance to journalists discouraging the improper use of "Assault Rifle/Weapon" and instead use "Semi-Auto Rifle" in line with how the Supreme Court justices have done as "Assault Rifle/Weapon" were "highly politicized terms", it was quite telling that something had changed - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...highly-politicized-terms-like-assault-weapon/

“Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey very little meaning about the actual function of the weapon.”​

 

[GEM]

The latest Times/Siena poll reported that guns have dropped as a major vote determinant in this election. Also, research indicates that the dramatic loss of white working class votes does in part contain antipathy to the Democratic gun control position.

Gov. Hochul's commercials stress that she is taking illegal guns off the street. It doesn't mention that she also took all legal concealed carry guns off the street. I mention that enough that my wife says: I know, I know.

Old man yells at clouds and TVs. I also had a letter in the local small town newspaper explaining it all to our public!

 

[AlexanderA]

The latest Times/Siena poll reported that guns have dropped as a major vote determinant in this election. Also, research indicates that the dramatic loss of white working class votes does in part contain antipathy to the Democratic gun control position.

The gun issue is notoriously hard to poll. Among the few people that respond to polls in the first place, gun owners are loath to admit to strangers that they even own guns. This is why I say that guns are a very important issue, that nevertheless lurks below the surface. The antigunners are very loudly evident, but this is misleading since the pro-gun vote is largely hidden.

 

[theotherwaldo]

My younger sister conducted telephone polling as a work-from-home job when everything was shut down by COVID-19.
She found that more of the people that professed left-leaning positions would complete the polling interviews.
Folks that leaned toward the middle or right would often quit somewhere in the middle.
Far-righters would usually shout something like "Trump 2020" and hang up.
Polling interviews that were not completed were discarded.
-And you wonder why the polls are skewed... .

 

[Capybara]

I'm in California and yes, our Governor and State AG have completely disregarded the NYSRPA ruling and it's ramifications and have, in fact doubled down on enforcing and enacting new anti-Constitutional 2A laws that are even more egregious than the present laws
that the SCOTUS ruling invalidated. I'm in the midst of renewing my CCW, knowing that even having it will soon be worthless under the new "sensitive places" BS that Newsom and Bonta will enact momentarily.

That raises an interesting point though, the question is, when an otherwise law abiding gun owner is arrested for violating on of these blatantly Unconstitutional new laws that fly in the face of the NYSRPA decision and single step historical scrutiny, will each of our 58 country AGs have the balls to file the charges and take it into the court system, knowing that the gun owner is being prosecuted under a law that WILL be found Unconstitutional and unlawful when it is moved the 9th and or SCOTUS? Of course, we will need test cases to prove this but I've seen some chatter and rumblings that at least our 58 County AGs may drop charges if the KNOW and it can easily be proven that the law/PC they would be using to prosecute will not hold water if and when the case is remanded or accelerated to a Pro 2A judge like our Roger T. Benitez or under a larger spotlight
like the 9th Circuit.

The only way we will see actual enforcement of the NYSRPA SCOTUS ruling is if the executive branch, through Federal AG, dispatches US Federal Marshalls to the state where the tyrants are disobeying the ruling. It happened during the Civil Rights era and has in several other
instances in recent memory but obviously won't happen as long as the Potato Administration has a stranglehold on Washington. But in 2024, if the Republicans nominate and elect a new administration that is more SCOTUS and 2A friendly, nothing would bring me more
joy then for our friends up in Sacramento or wherever the courtroom is in a given case were visited by a team of armed Federal Marshalls to uphold the law of the land. That would be a day to rejoice.

 

[Will Munny]

No, in order to have a constitutional crisis you would have to have 2 sides actually in a position to disagree over the interpretation of the constitution and create a crisis.
As it stands, socialists control the executive branch so they will happily go along with whatever the states like NY etc. do that violates the constitution. In order for their to be a crisis you would need someone in the executive branch that is ready to fight for the 2A, until that day comes there is no crisis.

 

[LiveLife]

The only way we will see actual enforcement of the NYSRPA SCOTUS ruling is if the executive branch, through Federal AG, dispatches US Federal Marshalls to the state where the tyrants are disobeying the ruling.

... in 2024, if the Republicans nominate and elect a new administration that is more SCOTUS and 2A friendly, nothing would bring me more joy then for our friends up in Sacramento or wherever the courtroom is in a given case were visited by a team of armed Federal Marshalls to uphold the law of the land. That would be a day to rejoice.

And that's how our founders framed this nation's government, so "We the People" can self govern to not allow mob majority impose on the rights of the minority.

"We the People" already corrected the injustices of slavery and women being second class citizens that the democratic majority imposed on the rights of the minority who lacked representation.

And "We the People", if so destined, will again correct the injustice of gun owners being treated as second class citizens and have their Second Amendment restored as first class right (as already stated by justice Thomas) through enforcement by elected representatives to legislative and executive branches.

Godspeed 2022/2024 and as justice Gorsuch stated, I do believe "We the People" can self govern.

 

[Will Munny]

And that's how our founders framed this nation's government so "We the People" can self govern.

"We the People" already corrected the injustices of slavery and women being second class citizens that the democratic majority imposed on the rights of the minority who lacked representation.

And "We the People" will, if so destined, again correct the injustice of gun owners being treated as second class citizens and have their Second Amendment restored as first class right, as already stated by justice Thomas.

Godspeed 2022/2024 and as justice Gorsuch stated, I do believe "We the People" can self govern.

That is a very rose coloured glasses view of history to say the least. In practice it never worked that way.

 

[LiveLife]

That is a very rose coloured glasses view of history to say the least. In practice it never worked that way.

Anti-gun crowd didn't have Supreme Court's Bruen ruling where the two-step approach was eliminated for Second Amendment cases in past decades.

2022 moving forward is a turning point where courts now must rule based on "text and history" approach only and even Associated Press reported it is now "open season" on anti-gun laws all across the nation, up and down the circuit/district courts.

With House, possibly Senate representation to change in 2022 and White House occupant in 2024, what happened in prior decades could be reversed with permanent enforcement of Supreme Court's Bruen ruling.

And of course, time will tell as "We the People" will decide what happens to this country.

 

[Will Munny]

Anti-gun crowd didn't have Supreme Court's Bruen ruling where the two-step approach was eliminated for Second Amendment cases in past decades.

2022 moving forward is a turning point where courts now much rule based on "text and history" approach only.

With House, possibly Senate representation to change in 2022 and White House occupant in 2024, what happened in prior decades could be reversed.

And of course, time will tell as "We the People" will decide what happens to this country.

Again, that is not a reasonable reading of history. We "had" the white house, senate, and house 2016-2018 and nothing changed. 1986, 1968, 1934 infringements all stayed on the books. And the justices who were appointed during that time gave away the white house. Even if all the changes you describe come to pass, precedent indicates little to nothing will change.

 

[LiveLife]

We "had" the white house, senate, and house 2016-2018 and nothing changed.

We didn't have the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling then.

Eliminating the "two-step" approach is a game changer as most of nation's anti-gun laws could be reversed under "text and history" approach only - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677

We will find out in due time who will control the House/Senate and the White House. If "We the People" want Bruen ruling permanently enforced, then we will see destiny unfold.

 

[Will Munny]

We didn't have the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling then.

Eliminating the "two-step" approach is a game changer as most of nation's anti-gun laws could be reversed under "text and history" approach only - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677

We will find out in due time who will control the House/Senate and the White House. If "We the People" want Bruen ruling permanently enforced, then we will see destiny unfold.

The ruling came after that period, and can hardly be called a victory when the relevant states are simply ignoring it.
This whole "we the people" thing is a sad joke.

 

[LiveLife]

This whole "we the people" thing is a sad joke.

It is what it is regardless what our opinion is. And before too long, results of "We the People" voting will be known.

BTW, this is a gun forum so Bruen ruling with the prospect of pro-2A House/Senate and WH in 2024 is something we can hope for in permanent enforcement of Supreme Court ruling.

 

[brewer12345]

Gov. Hochul's commercials stress that she is taking illegal guns off the street. It doesn't mention that she also took all legal concealed carry guns off the street. I mention that enough that my wife says: I know, I know.

Well, not so much any more. Looks to me like the judge largely broke it off in Hochul's @ss: 27 TRO granted in part.pdf | PDF Host

More litigation to come, I am sure. Guessing none of their BS law will end up standing.

 

[Will Munny]

It is what it is regardless what our opinion is. And before too long, results of "We the People" voting will be known.

BTW, this is a gun forum so Bruen ruling with the prospect of pro-2A House/Senate and WH in 2024 is something we can hope for in permanent enforcement of Supreme Court ruling.

Its not an option, it is a reality. "we the people" is a sad joke, and if it held any sway we would not be ruled by the people that are in office today.

 

[LiveLife]

And with that, back to OP.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

And with that, back to OP.

I'm at a loss, guys.This has been a meandering discussion to follow. All I can say, is, I predict a moment on the horizon where anti gun states just say no to the Supreme Court and no to Bruen and keep going down their path. The only recourse seems to be follow-on legal challenges that will delay implementation of Bruen for another generation. This isn't hat different from southern states' reaction to the Brown decision. (Or to the Roe decision for that matter.) It will take decades to accomplish what Bruen specifies, and that's only if the current make-up of the court holds out that long. It wouldn't surprise me if the balance of power on the court shifts in the next 10 years and Bruen gets forgotten/unenforced or outright reversed. In the mean time, the near total disregard in states like CA, NY, etc. will essentially nullify the decision.

 

[Robert]

This has wandered all over the place. Let's call it a day for now. We can revisit this in the future if something actually happens.