Judge upholds Rhode Island's high-capacity gun magazine ban

[BushMaster-15]

Cause a mass shooter is really going to stop, make sure their magazine is state compliant, before shooting at groups of people. I am convinced anti-gunners don't think about anything logically.

They obviously DON'T think at all ,this is the MAJORITY OF THE PROBLEM WITHIN THE USA . Complete and utter Idiocy as in illiterate, just take a gander at 1965 USA World educational rankings and look where they are currently . How much money has the d side of the equation pissed away , with their Dept. of Education since Peanut boy and his merry band of morons created it ? .$100's of BILLIONS and look what we've got to show for it ; Imbeciles both politically and educationally !. No one ever goes after the root cause of criminal behavior ,it's so much EASIER TO DENY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF THEIR RIGHTS ,as well as more profitable . Follow the monies and it's where the PROBLEMS LIE !. IMO

 

[TTv2]

I gave what I thought they should have said early in the thread. Basically, clearly state that AWBs and mag bans are unconsitutional for semi auto weapons. That's it. Clearly stated.

That wasn't at issue in the Bruen case, SCOTUS can't take a case that has to do with may issue carry laws and decide to rule on a litany of issues related to 2A, but they could do what they did in changing the judicial approach and changing scrutiny. SCOTUS will now see if district and appellate courts follow the new guidelines or continue to ignore SCOTUS.

The cases in the 9th Circuit and the upcoming appeals from this RI case along with other Massachusetts cases at the 1st Circuit will be very telling as the 9th Circuit is much more right wing, while the 1st Circuit is extremely left wing. The chances are high there will be a split between appellate courts and SCOTUS will have to settle the issue.

This is likely to happen within the next 3 years.

Frank is so correct on using the courts to substitute for legislation. I've read that in reviews. However, there are two among many problems. First, despite what the legal professions might say, when it comes to contentious social issues, judges and justices decide along their politics and then look for precedents. That's been pretty well documented most of the time, the few different cases are few. Currently, the justices are chosen for their pre-existing known beliefs on social issues. That's why the historical rule was again a mistake. Doubt Clarence thought of it. Some clerk was being clever. The others justices said why not, that sounds like it will make us look clever and wise.

I don't see decisive Scotus or legislative action for quite a bit. I agree that Scotus says - we did Bruen, we will go back into our cave as we did after Heller and McDonald.

Thomas has likely had a 2A draft in his files ever since Heller, perhaps longer, and the reason why few 2A cases have gotten to the court have been because of Kennedy as an unreliable vote by both sides. With a clear majority on the court, there's no reason more 2A cases won't be accepted after they've been worked thru the lower courts following the vacating and remanding under the new guidelines set by Bruen.

I don't like how everything got vacated and remanded, but it is going to be interesting to see just how many district and circuit judges ignore SCOTUS. They keep it up and we may see some quick action by the court on certain 2A issues.

Second, the pro gun legislature at the Federal level is a myth. The GOP (sorry to be political) does not take strong steps for pro gun legislation. The examples are out there easy to see. Why? Cowardice? Not really support gun rights? Worry the peasants will storm the houses of the rich? Wanting to keep the issue hot for elections and fund raising? All of these - sure. Recall, where the latest serious actual banning of a gun thing came from - Orange Alert. You can get what you want Nancy! I'm not afraid of the NRA.

Actually the latter has some truth as they have been much weakened by Wayne and now lacking an effective public spokesperson, plus their leeching themselves on to Team Orange, ignoring the growing gun population of diverse views.

I absolutely agree with you the legislature not being pro gun, but that only applies to the Senate and RNC leadership as the House in 2017 passed suppressor deregulation, but Ryan pulled that bill after the Scalise shooting and Turkey neck in the Senate wasn't likely going to move to introduce it anyway, not that it had any chance to reach 60 votes in the senate anyway.

The reality is with Federal legislation, unless the bill passes with a simple Senate majority, nothing pro-gun will ever come from it. The best we can get out of DC is no new legislation, which goes to show that the only real solution to 2A is thru the Judiciary.

The NRA is a shell of itself and no longer is all that important largely because even if the NRA lobbies the RNC, we saw the games Cocaine Mitch plays with funding Republican candidates who don't support him as Senate leader. When the money can't even get to the candidates, what's the point of donating to the NRA when Big Wayne is probably taking a percent of all donations to buy himself a new suit?

You can blame Trump all you want for bump stock bans, they were as good as gone whether it be thru Congress or Executive action. I was telling people then to make the deal with the Dems and trade the bump stocks for the suppressors, but nobody wanted to hear it and the result was you got neither bump stocks or suppressors. Trump is easy to blame tho and clearly it makes certain 2A supporters feel better to make themselves believe bump stocks being banned is all his fault.

JSYK, Trump is also the reason that pistol braces were just fine to shoulder for the 4 years he was in office.

 

[denton]

SCOTUS will only decide exactly the point of law that is presented to them. They do not go looking for other issues to decide or weigh social consequences.

An AWB or a magazine ban was not presented to them.

Justice Thomas hit it out of the park in laying down the principles that he did. I expect many of our gun laws to go the way of the buffalo over the next decade: FOID cards, magazine bans, AWB, CA's gun "safety" restrictions etc.

We may even see the end of most of the NFA and FOPA. I don't think the government can say that machine guns are banned because they are not in common use for lawful purposes when it is government regulation that has made it so.

 

[natman]

SCOTUS will only decide exactly the point of law that is presented to them. They do not go looking for other issues to decide or weigh social consequences.

An AWB or a magazine ban was not presented to them.

Justice Thomas hit it out of the park in laying down the principles that he did. I expect many of our gun laws to go the way of the buffalo over the next decade: FOID cards, magazine bans, AWB, CA's gun "safety" restrictions etc.

We may even see the end of most of the NFA and FOPA. I don't think the government can say that machine guns are banned because they are not in common use for lawful purposes when it is government regulation that has made it so.

SCOTUS has been presented with a magazine ban case, California's Duncan v Bonta. They granted cert, vacated the Ninth Circuit decision supporting the ban, and remanded the case back for reconsideration using the text, history and tradition criteria specified in Bruen. It has been sent back down to the original trial judge, Roger Benitez, who should rule on it soon.

 

[GEM]

But then does it have to go up to the Circuit - they will find some precedent for the ban. Why do that? If they thought Bruen vacated the 9th, just say it and avoid the crappola.

 

[natman]

But then does it have to go up to the Circuit - they will find some precedent for the ban. Why do that? If they thought Bruen vacated the 9th, just say it and avoid the crappola.

Bruen fundamentally changed the rules by rejecting the "interest balancing" method that was the mainstay of most gun control decisions. Rather than just reject the decisions, they are going to give the lower courts a chance to come to the proper conclusions on their own based on the new rules. In the case of the Ninth Circuit, they will twist logic and language to somehow "justify" ignoring the 2A, just like they have on every gun case they've ever had. Then SCOTUS will rule against them.

 

[GEM]

And that takes a long time. Why give the lower courts a chance? That's a flat out stupid journey into the legal weeds. Now, if Super Justice Clarence drops dead - as he is in that age bracket, Biden replaces him with an anti - then it's new person, Roberts +3. Bye bye, gun rights.

If they fundamentally changed the rules, apply the fundamental change. In a sense, they are playing the RBG game, hoping that the court stays this way for a long time. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

Also, again the new rules are interpretative and the anticourts will mine history for precedents. It's happening already. That forces back to Scotus, just wasting time and effort.

Sorry, not impressed if their strategy is truly to support the RKBA as compared to just screwing around because we are the big cheese court. Get it done.

 

[General Geoff]

Get it done.

The only plausible reason they haven't is that the 5-4 split in Bruen was only achievable by kicking the political can down the road, in the form of being as vaguely pro-2a as possible while leaving maximum potential for decades-long historic merit court proceedings to drag out. They won't do a more specific, pointed 2a decision with the same 9 justices if they can help it.

 

[GEM]

I totally agree.

 

[Will Munny]

Bruen changed nothing. The states are free to ignore it until the faction ruling Washington says otherwise.

 

[TTv2]

The only plausible reason they haven't is that the 5-4 split in Bruen was only achievable by kicking the political can down the road, in the form of being as vaguely pro-2a as possible while leaving maximum potential for decades-long historic merit court proceedings to drag out. They won't do a more specific, pointed 2a decision with the same 9 justices if they can help it.

Bruen was 6-3 tho

 

[JN01]

Bruen changed nothing. The states are free to ignore it until the faction ruling Washington says otherwise.

I guess all those RKBA organizations might as well stop filing lawsuits since they are useless, all is lost.

Why do you think a change in the Federal administration will have any effect on what the gun hating states do? Are the Feds going to make them change their laws somehow?

States can pass all the bad laws they want, but if the provisions of those laws are unconstitutional, they cannot enforce them. If they try, their minions can be sued for civil rights violations.

Weasel legislators and judges can play their childish games finding cute ways to misinterpret or simply ignore sections of SCOTUS decisions they don't like, but in the end, it's not going to work.

Unfortunately, straightening this mess up will take some time. On the plus side, the remanded cases (mostly from CA) are looking like they will be decided rather soon, much quicker than starting from square one.