What do you consider the most imporant Gun Rights to win in court?

[Aim1]

In order what do you consider the most important gun rights to win in court?



a. Strict Scrutiny required for the 2nd Amendment

b. Carry outside of the home

c. 'Assault Weapons' (semi-automatic rifles) are legal

d. 'High-Capacity' (standard capacity) magazines are legal

e. Carry across all state for all citizens is legal

f. Suppressors are legal in all states and can be bought just like any other firearm accessory no longer requiring NFA restrictions

g. Trigger locks/locking up weapons restrictions are not legal in the home

h. Background checks for ammo are illegal

i. Excessive taxes on guns/ammo are illegal

j. Private sales to individuals do not require a background check

k. Other rights........



I'm assuming that all cases pertaining to the 2nd Amendment requiring Strict Scrutiny would be the most important case because that would affect all other court cases, but I'm not sure.


We can only hope that these and other important cases make it to a favorable Supreme Court that has all 9 justices so that we don't have a 4-4 split that ends up causing a court loss against 2nd Amendment rights to become permanent.

 

[barnbwt]

"A" covers all the rest, which is why biased courts don't respect it per Heller (including SCOTUS at this point)

 

[Aim1]

"A" covers all the rest, which is why biased courts don't respect it per Heller (including SCOTUS at this point)

Considering that 'a' is the most important, where do the rest fall in after that?

 

[Swing]

A, B, E, and F. And for K: getting rid of the Hughes Amendment, so that we can Form 1 new MGs.

 

[Aim1]

A, B, E, and F. And for K: getting rid of the Hughes Amendment, so that we can Form 1 new MGs.

Do you ever expect the last one to actually pass?

 

[Swing]

Do you ever expect the last one to actually pass?

Nope. It is exceedingly unlikely the courts will rule it unconstitutional, and have, on a few occasions, upheld it. So, it would have to be amended by congress and even with a very pro-RKBA majority and president, that is almost guaranteed not to happen. So, nah, not holding my breath on that one.

 

[larryh1108]

I don't see it listed.

A. Shall not be infringed.... in any way, shape or form.

Kind of simple if you think about it.

 

[barnbwt]

It is exceedingly unlikely the courts will rule it unconstitutional, and have, on a few occasions, upheld it

It was recently upheld in Watson, still pending for Hollis, using very circular logic reminiscent of the recent Peruta re-decision (or rather, 'un-decision' since they flatly punted to a non-responsive SCOTUS as a workaround to justifying the injustice with words).

In front of an honest, fearless court, Hughes would be struck down as a de facto ban far outside the scope of the NFA or congress' constitutional authority to regulate firearms, even with a broad view of select portions of Heller (machine guns are neither 'uncommon' by either civil or military standards in America, nor are they demonstrably more dangerous than semi-autos to a degree justifying an outright ban)

In light of Peruta, no, I'm not real hopeful; the circuit courts have been able to defy Heller a handful of times in the last several years without any repercussions, and are getting more and more brazen in misinterpreting the law for politics.

TCB

 

[JSH1]

Suppressors as accessories not firearms.

 

[230RN]

a.

Terry

 

[roscoe]

B. Carry outside the home.

 

[TimSr]

We can only hope that these and other important cases make it to a favorable Supreme Court that has all 9 justices so that we don't have a 4-4 split that ends up causing a court loss against 2nd Amendment rights to become permanent.

I think calling the current court a 4-4 split is being optimistic. It's more like a 4-3 split with an eighth one that swings in both directions. That's why this election is so much more than a battle for the executive branch. We need another Scalia to replace Scalia, just to keep the court balanced. It will be the subsequent appointment that will determine which way the court goes.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Rights are like honor and virginity, once you set priorities you have opened the door for compromise. Once you compromise you have none.

 

[Aim1]

Rights are like honor and virginity, once you set priorities you have opened the door for compromise. Once you compromise you have none.

That's unrealistic. You have to compromise when it comes to laws and none of your rights are absolute.


Example, you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.

 

[Jim Watson]

Most such "compromises" have been along the Soviet line of "negotiation."
"What is ours is ours, what is yours is debatable."

 

[tark]

The right to have one at all.

 

[Officers'Wife]

That's unrealistic. You have to compromise when it comes to laws and none of your rights are absolute.


Example, you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.

Duly noted as your opinion.

 

[Aim1]

Duly noted as your opinion.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. The Supreme Court has ruled that.



You have free speech but like I said above, you can't say whatever you want. If it endangers someones life such as yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, or you say, 'Go hurt that person', it is illegal.



Tell me of one Constitutional right that is absolute and has no compromise in it.

 

[JSH1]

It's not an opinion. It's fact. The Supreme Court has ruled that.



You have free speech but like I said above, you can't say whatever you want. If it endangers someones life such as yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, or you say, 'Go hurt that person', it is illegal.



Tell me of one Constitutional right that is absolute and has no compromise in it.

There are people that reject the reality that the Constitution set up the courts to decide difference of opinions on the meaning of the law. These people believe their interpretation of the law trumps court rulings.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[barnbwt]

That's unrealistic. You have to compromise when it comes to laws and none of your rights are absolute.

They are, however, both inalienable and self-evident...

...which means they are darn sure open to Joe Blow's unqualified opinion of their plain meaning, if'n you think about it. Now, the practical reality may not reflect that ideal, but politics rarely is idealistic or even justified.

TCB

 

[22-rimfire]

The most important win that needs to continue is the universal right to keep and bear arms in the USA. It needs to be absolute and not some compromise at a federal level. Individual states can do pretty much what they want to relative to their own constitutions.

I don't see compromise in my future. Let's see.... a Islamic terrorist kills 49 and wounds 53 in a gay night club in Orlando. Now they want to make military styled semi-automatic rifles illegal or much much harder to own..... Obama calls them weapons of war..... This is a very slippery slope from a guns rights point of view.

Terror watch list....., hmm, so they want to restrict rights based on some list that once you're on it, it takes nearly an act of God to remove your name...... guilty until proven innocent..... Allow some appointed politician the power to put your name on a list which blocks or restricts firearm ownership??? Hmm...

And yet, the President wants to allow all of these Syrians refugees into the US and we already see ISIS infiltrating western countries and they want to step it up a notch or two now. If we can't discriminate between a likely terrorist and a honest person just trying to survive, then they are all potential terrorists.

 

[Ellsnjel]

It's not an opinion. It's fact. The Supreme Court has ruled that.



You have free speech but like I said above, you can't say whatever you want. If it endangers someones life such as yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, or you say, 'Go hurt that person', it is illegal.



Tell me of one Constitutional right that is absolute and has no compromise in it.

The Supreme Court also once ruled that African Americans could not be citizens. Al the rights in the bill of rights are absolute. Also the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is fallacious because it is a call to action not an exercise of speech. Just like you cannot instruct someone to commit a crime and then claim protection under the first amendment

Edit
I guess I would have to say I think e is most important. Especially repealing NYS blatantly unconstitutional Sullivan act