Quantcast

Time for SCOTUS to step into the fray

Discussion in 'Legal' started by RETG, Dec 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,464
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    And, fifty years' hence, we see the results.
    "Sporting Purpose" is no longer debated, but accepted.
    "Civilian Use" is no longer debated, but accepted.
    "You don't need [thing]" is no longer debated, but accepted.

    Fifty years, two and a half full generations, half a century to be inculcated that gun ownership is de facto prohibited unless the law abiding can prove that they are so.

    And the Second is not the only Amendment so abused--4th, th, 6th, "You have nothing to fear if you are innocent..."
    We are told that all of those infringements are "reasonable" and are for grander purposes, like control of crime. But, we never get to debate whether those infringements produce actual societal good; no, we are left debating just how 'reasonable' the infringements are.

    The question w probably ought to be asking is "When do the infringements compound?" When will gun ownership also mean a loss of 4th & 5th Amendment rights? (Red Flag laws may fall afoul of 4th, 5th, & 6th presumptive infringement.)

    But, I may be jaded and cynical.
     
    Spats McGee, poboy6 and Charlie Horse like this.
  2. CLP

    CLP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    Alabama

    Agreed. The Chief Justice is less than reliable.
     
  3. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    46,825
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    I've used the question about efficacy of law when in a thread at a website where there are proponents of gun control laws. After several no-answer posts I commonly point out that the issue is control, not crime. Pre-Internet, I asked in snail-mail letters to various recipients.
     
    CapnMac likes this.
  4. poboy6

    poboy6 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    MO
    They're not already against them! That's the problem. When politicians openly talk about the "need" for more gun legislation, the "money, focus and momentum" will then go against them. The Democratic politicians even call it the "gun safety" movement, yet I don't see them offering any classes on proper handling, storage or transportation of firearms. They don't mean safety, they clearly mean regulation (which always means over-regulation when politicians get involved). If the Democrats would stop crying about guns they would win every federal election going forward.

    Unfortunately they whine and cry like petulant children about things they don't understand, simply because they find them scary...
     
  5. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,748
    Location:
    Salem, AR
    Where are the attorneys? We need someone to step in to explain the regulatory process as it relates to existing statute and the Second Amendment.
     
  6. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,446
    Location:
    WNY
    Let's stop the political ranting. Stay on the topic of SCOTUS. Discussing political parties outside of the specifics of gun issues is not for this forum.
     
  7. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    5,475
    Location:
    Southern CA
    So who defines legitimate civilian use?
    I don't recall seeing anything about legitimate civilian use in the 2nd amendment.

    I could argue we censor TV news/ Political adds, TV is much to dangerous, free speech should not apply to TV, freedom of the press (printing was all that was available at the time) ok, TV No.
    1 person speaking=single shot rifle, Printing press=lever action rifle, TV=Fully auto weapon crew served weapon, so ban regulate TV, TV is much to dangerous

    Once we take care of some of the other dangerous things we then need to ban any political party that has different views than the one in power,
    they are dangerous, so they must be banned, ditto with religion, dangerous religion, not the one of the people in power, needs to be banned.

    Lots of people killed by cell phones, edit- far more than as killed by AR15s, so maybe we need to ban cell phones
    • In 2013, 3,154 people were killed in distraction-related crashes.
    • About 424,000 people were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver.
    • In 2013, 10% of all drivers ages 15 to 19 involved in fatal accidents were reported to be distracted at the time of the crash.

    2018
    26 percent of all motor vehicle crashes are related to the use of cell phones. Each day,11 teens die in crashes caused by texting and driving. 2.35 million people in the US are injured or disabled by car crashes every year. More than 330,000 of these crashes that cause severe injury are caused by texting and driving.Jun 14, 2018

    I see no push to ban cell phones......
    For sure no cell phones until you are 21.....same logic some States use for firearms....
    Special Cell phone safety card (tax)
    10 day waiting period for cell phones
    No cell phone batteries that last longer than 10 minutes (911 call should take less than 10 minutes 911 call now determined to be the only legitimate use for cell phones)
    Limited to 10 text messages per day......

    I would think most people would say the cell phone stuff above is bovine excrement, but 1/2 of them would say it's fine applied to firearms....

    About 15,000 gun deaths in 2018, about 28,500 injuries, so I would say cell phones are much larger problem that needs to be addressed first.
    (maybe do away with cars while we are at it, lots of car deaths)
    https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
    There are laws against Texting and driving but they don't work so the answer is to ban cell phones, right?, Simple fix.

    Sorry if this is sort of off thread for legal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    adcoch1 and Texas10mm like this.
  8. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Arkansas
    We're here, just busy with Christmas, jobs, and the New Year, just like everyone else. The short story (shooting from the hip, no research) is as follows:
    1. Congress passes a law that provides the broad framework for what they want done.
    2. Congress then delegates regulatory authority to an agency to administer that law.
    3. The agency then passes the more specific regulations in an attempt to carry out the law.
     
    Frank Ettin likes this.
  9. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,873
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    I've been busy with the Holidays, although not with a job.

    And good summary, Spats. Let me just add the following:

    1. There's in general a formalized process for the adoption of regulations. Proposed regulations are published, and the public has a period of time in which to comment. Under certain circumstances emergency regulations may be adopted in a more streamlined manner, but those regulation may generally be effective for only a limited period.

    2. An implemented regulation is subject to challenge on a number of bases, e. g.,:

      • that the regulation itself, on its face or as applied, is unconstitutional;

      • that the regulation is outside the scope of the authority delegated by Congress;

      • sometimes, that the regulation is inconsistent with the underlying statute(s).
     
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    Location:
    Virginia
    A court would start with the narrowest possible ground for invalidating a regulation. In this instance, that would be that the bump stock regulation contravenes the clear language of the statute defining a "machine gun." That would depend on technical evidence being introduced. Only after the court decided that the regulation did in fact comport with the statute, would it then reach the constitutional issues. The prime constitutional issue here is whether there is a "taking" that would require compensation under the 5th Amendment. (The 2nd Amendment "infringement" issue is there, but is likely to be shunted aside by the court.) Frankly I think our chances are less than 50/50 overall.
     
    Spats McGee likes this.
  11. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,464
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Actually, all rifles/long arms run to only 300 per year, ever. So, just with your listed stats, cell phones are 10 times deadlier than all rifles, in general. The actual numbers are probably significantly more skewed, as distracted driving is under-reported (and AR use is over-blown).
     
  12. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    5,475
    Location:
    Southern CA
    Good point CapnMac edited my post.
     
  13. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Location:
    Florida
    The people through the political process, and ultimately the Supreme Court if warranted.

    It’s there if the people determine that to be the case. The people have the right to determine what the Constitution means and enact laws accordingly.

    The people also have the right to challenge those laws in court – with the Supreme Court making the final determination as to whether the interpretation of the people is correct.
     
  14. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    So if 'the people' (we'll assume you mean a simple majority) determine the 2nd amendment means 'no civilian has a right to own any firearm', that's what it means? You're proposing absolute relativism in interpreting the most basic law of the land?

    That's the definition of the 'tyranny of the majority' the Constitution was written to protect us from. There are some non-negotiable aspects of our government, unless the Constitution gets lawfully amended. We aren't a nation of laws if a simple majority gets to redefine our law simply by 'deciding' what it means.

    Larry
     
  15. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    56,189
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    But not "ripe" enough. It will be ripe enough with Justice Ginsberg's replacement and that must happen before 2020. I for one don't want to risk a decision from SCOTUS now that is against us and sets the interpretation on the 2nd for the next 20 years.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice