Connecticut law upheld

[eruby]

This is a good thing. When the appeal goes all the way up we can get rid of this nonsense in one decision nationally.

Unless the SCOTUS does not rule in our favor.

Which, pessemist that I am, can easily see happening. I'd LOVE to be wrong and eat crow.

 

[Vile Shadow]

I smell another bribe here. Somebody did a little palm greasing.

 

[INMY01TA]

Unless the SCOTUS does not rule in our favor.

Which, pessemist that I am, can easily see happening. I'd LOVE to be wrong and eat crow.

Or simply refuse to take the case. Which I really see happening.

 

[rem87062597]

Unless the SCOTUS does not rule in our favor.

Which, pessemist that I am, can easily see happening. I'd LOVE to be wrong and eat crow.

The judge basically said "I know this goes against the Supreme Court, but I'm going to make my decision anyways because I think they're wrong." If the Supreme Court takes it they should strike it down fairly easily based on Heller. IF they take it.

I know this isn't SAF but Gura's whole thing is to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Overwhelm the system with gun cases and figure that eventually they'll have to take some of them. We need to hit the Supreme Court with cases if we ever want Heller tier stuff to happen. Part of me is mad at this judge for being stupid but the other part of me knows that this may be the best way for the case to advance. The Supreme Court may not be perfect but it's our best shot at pro-gun stuff nationally.

 

[RightNYer]

The judge basically said "I know this goes against the Supreme Court, but I'm going to make my decision anyways because I think they're wrong." If the Supreme Court takes it they should strike it down fairly easily based on Heller. IF they take it.

I know this isn't SAF but Gura's whole thing is to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. Overwhelm the system with gun cases and figure that eventually they'll have to take some of them. We need to hit the Supreme Court with cases if we ever want Heller tier stuff to happen. Part of me is mad at this judge for being stupid but the other part of me knows that this may be the best way for the case to advance. The Supreme Court may not be perfect but it's our best shot at pro-gun stuff nationally.

I just don't think the Supreme Court ever had any real intention on effecting real change.

 

[TxAggie]

My only surprise is that he openly admits that the law infringes on the 2nd Amendment. I guess he does't really understand what the preceding "shall not be" means.

 

[BenL]

This is a good thing. When the appeal goes all the way up we can get rid of this nonsense in one decision nationally.

...or have some personal decisions to make regarding our beliefs in Liberty and Freedom, much like the conundrum our forefathers were faced with. After all, our first Revolution started over citizens being armed and the government trying to take that away; then again, they didn't have Xbox and "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

 

[NateIU10]

Anyone know what level of scrutiny that is? sounds like RB

It is intermediate scrutiny.

 

[swinokur]

Don't forget getting to SCOTUS is not automatic. No cert, no case.

 

[ryan_j]

My only surprise is that he openly admits that the law infringes on the 2nd Amendment.

That's the whole point. Once you apply anything but strict scrutiny, they can say, "yes, it violates the constitution, BUT..." and we know everything before BUT is BS.

 

[ryan_j]

Don't forget getting to SCOTUS is not automatic. No cert, no case.

I've been thinking about this long and hard.

The whole reason SCOTUS won't take a case is because there's no split, right?

But the whole reason that we have no split is because the only cases coming to the court are from states with bad laws and activist liberal judges who will rule against the 2A.

You don't have any CCW cases coming from a state like Texas, for example, which has shall issue CCW. No AWB cases from there either.

So this is why we are where we are.

 

[RightNYer]

I've been thinking about this long and hard.

The whole reason SCOTUS won't take a case is because there's no split, right?

But the whole reason that we have no split is because the only cases coming to the court are from states with bad laws and activist liberal judges who will rule against the 2A.

You don't have any CCW cases coming from a state like Texas, for example, which has shall issue CCW. No AWB cases from there either.

So this is why we are where we are.

This is wishful thinking on the part of conservatives. There is no requirement that there be a split before the SCOTUS takes a case. They simply don't want to.

 

[RightNYer]

That's the whole point. Once you apply anything but strict scrutiny, they can say, "yes, it violates the constitution, BUT..." and we know everything before BUT is BS.

Not necessarily. Intermediate scrutiny is a tough hurdle to get past if the court actually considers the evidence and weighs it itself. If the court defers to the legislature's "weighing" of the evidence and doesn't consider the quality of the evidence, then yes, anything will be "Constitutional."

 

[pcfixer]

“While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello in Hartford said in his ruling.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-law-passed-after-sandy-hook-is-ruled-legal-1

the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was codified was so that the public didn't have to rely on the government for their safety, and more to the point, so the people didn't have to put up with a government that had gotten too intrusive. Unfortunately we are quite a ways past that point.

Chief Justice Marshall made it clear that this was a general principle of constitutional law, not just of the U.S. Constitution. Marshall did rely upon specific language in the Constitution as part of the Court's support for this holding. Marshall noted:

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank." (Emphasis added.)

Marshall was quoting Article VI clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution also known as the Supremacy Clause.[vi] Subsequently the Court in addressing unconstitutional enactments has stated:

"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment."
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371,376-77 (1879)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 426 (1886

..

^^^^ This point really needs to be inforced at public hearings, delegates and senators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

 

[cress]

Don't forget getting to SCOTUS is not automatic. No cert, no case.

Yes, this is true. I'm sure it helps that they will have a few cases to pick from that challenge AWBs. There is NYSRPA v. Cuomo from the Western District for New York, and of course this Connecticut case which is the District of Connecticut. Both of these are under the 2nd circuit so there is little hope for anything different on appeal at that level, so they will both certainly be filing for cert once we get past that stage. We only need one of these to go to SCOTUS.

 

[RightNYer]

It's time to start thinking war. But unfortunately, my fellow conservatives are too naive at this stage.

 

[jrosenberger]

You don't have any CCW cases coming from a state like Texas, for example, which has shall issue CCW.

Not true. NRA v McCraw, a lawsuit about CCW permits for 18-20 year olds in TX is pending cert at the Supreme Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-390.htm The petitioners reply is due soon, and after that it'll get scheduled for conference.

 

[ryan_j]

Not necessarily. Intermediate scrutiny is a tough hurdle to get past if the court actually considers the evidence and weighs it itself. If the court defers to the legislature's "weighing" of the evidence and doesn't consider the quality of the evidence, then yes, anything will be "Constitutional."

Didn't they rule in Heller that you can't use intermediate scrutiny for the 2A?

 

[BRONZ]

Ladies & Gentlemen... let's hear it... For The Supreme's !!

And if they rule against the 2nd. They only need 1 or 2 to change/ retire and the old rulings can go by by.

 

[TxAggie]

...or have some personal decisions to make regarding our beliefs in Liberty and Freedom, much like the conundrum our forefathers were faced with. After all, our first Revolution started over citizens being armed and the government trying to take that away; then again, they didn't have Xbox and "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

Maybe, but don't forget that at the time it is estimated that only 40-45% supported independence, and far fewer actually fought or showed active assistance. We don't have to worry nearly as much about failing crops or keeping warm as they did.