High-capacity magazine ban goes before Vermont Supreme Court

jcutonilli · Feb 23, 2021

Topher said:
My research has shown that in a mass shooting the assailant is wearing shoes.
The fact he is wearing shoes makes him more mobile and increases his lethality.
I hear by move we regulate shoes to better protect the children.

If you want the court to understand this you need to frame it as part of a legal argument.

They never made that type of argument.

Here is a video of the oral arguments presented.

erwos · Feb 23, 2021

The plaintiffs also, according to the opinion, never actually presented evidence of more than 10 shots being used in a self-defense shooting. If you're not cynical, that was a major blunder. (If you are cynical, the court was always going to rule against us, so it didn't matter.) The ruling seemed to rely heavily on "no more citizen militias, so no more 2A", which I think could bite them in the ass upon SCOTUS review.

On to SCOTUS. At least we've got a chance of a fair hearing there.

Allen65 · Feb 23, 2021

erwos said:
The ruling seemed to rely heavily on "no more citizen militias, so no more 2A", which I think could bite them in the ass upon SCOTUS review.

Hopefully it will bite them. Otherwise any enumerated right can be excised from the BoR upon a court findING it's "obsolete". Heller and its follow-ons are settled law. This ruling doesn't even pretend to twist itself into a logical pretzel with some form of modified scrutiny or interest balancing, it just pretends Heller never existed.

randomuser · Feb 23, 2021

JPG said:
2A is dead it died a longtime ago. We are just now realizing this. “Health and Safety” is an argument the anti gunners use and it can’t be defeated.

It amazes me that attorneys don’t use the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2A.

As with any rule or law (shall not be infringed), it only carries weight if there is a consequence. The only consequence they have ever seen is compliance or having to see signs that say WWNC while keeping hidden what they have required to be hidden.

JPG · Feb 23, 2021

erwos said:
The plaintiffs also, according to the opinion, never actually presented evidence of more than 10 shots being used in a self-defense shooting. If you're not cynical, that was a major blunder. (If you are cynical, the court was always going to rule against us, so it didn't matter.) The ruling seemed to rely heavily on "no more citizen militias, so no more 2A", which I think could bite them in the ass upon SCOTUS review.

On to SCOTUS. At least we've got a chance of a fair hearing there.

I used to think that, but now.......... :sad20:

lazarus · Feb 23, 2021

Allen65 said:
Hopefully it will bite them. Otherwise any enumerated right can be excised from the BoR upon a court find it's "obsolete". Heller and its follow-ons are settled law. This ruling doesn't even pretend to twist itself into a logical pretzel with some form of modified scrutiny or interest balancing, it just pretends Heller never existed.

IMHO if it is obsolete that is why the constitution has a provision for how to amend it. Not because some judges or even legislators feel it is.

My 2 cents is it isn’t remotely obsolete.

jcutonilli · Feb 23, 2021

JPG said:
2A is dead it died a longtime ago. We are just now realizing this. “Health and Safety” is an argument the anti gunners use and it can’t be defeated.

It amazes me that attorneys don’t use the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2A.

The "shall not be infringed" part requires you to understand what the right actually refers to.

"Health and Safety" is the whole point of the amendment. It just depends on whose "health and safety" you are talking about. The anti gunners arguments can be easily defeated once you point out they are addressing the wrong health and safety issues.

jcutonilli · Feb 23, 2021

erwos said:
The plaintiffs also, according to the opinion, never actually presented evidence of more than 10 shots being used in a self-defense shooting. If you're not cynical, that was a major blunder. (If you are cynical, the court was always going to rule against us, so it didn't matter.) The ruling seemed to rely heavily on "no more citizen militias, so no more 2A", which I think could bite them in the ass upon SCOTUS review.

On to SCOTUS. At least we've got a chance of a fair hearing there.

It is not exactly a blunder, there is very little real evidence on how many shots are fired in self-defense shootings. What the plaintiffs failed to do is point out how the government manipulated the data. They use news stories such as is found in the NRA Armed Citizen reports/database. The majority of these reports do not actually report the number of shots fired, yet the government assumes an average number of shots when there was no shots fired information.

When the government says there are no known self defense "assault weapons" uses, it because the same Armed Citizen reports/database rarely reports the specific type of firearm used.

Occam · Feb 23, 2021

jcutonilli said:
When the government says there are no known self defense "assault weapons" uses, it because the same Armed Citizen reports/database rarely reports the specific type of firearm used.

And because nobody can be bothered to use freakin' Google to even check for well-publicized examples. But without even looking, I immediately recalled the 2019 case in Conyers, GA. Resident with AR15 vs. multiple assailants at 4:00AM in his front yard. Dumb yutes trying to be gangsta paid the ultimate stupid price.

Or how about the gent in TX who put a stop to a mass shooting spree including a church, grabbing his AR15 to do the defensive deed - perfect weapon for the distance at which he was shooting, too.

Anyone who says there are no examples isn't just not trying, you have to actually wonder if they're going out of their way to avoid easily found info.

smokey · Feb 23, 2021

Allen65 said:
Hopefully it will bite them. Otherwise any enumerated right can be excised from the BoR upon a court find it's "obsolete". Heller and its follow-ons are settled law. This ruling doesn't even pretend to twist itself into a logical pretzel with some form of modified scrutiny or interest balancing, it just pretends Heller never existed.

It's interesting that the 2a exists precisely for when a government feels your inalienable rights are obsolete...

Ponder_MD · Feb 26, 2021

lazarus said:
IMHO if it is obsolete that is why the constitution has a provision for how to amend it. Not because some judges or even legislators feel it is.

My 2 cents is it isn’t remotely obsolete.

As was recently pointed out to me, the original Amendments that form the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by further Amendments. The first 10 Amendments cannot be repealed or further amended. The Bill of Rights stands on its own and cannot be changed.

Can you imagine if we had a Constitutional Convention where the population voted away their right to free speech and peaceable assembly? "Oh, that's obsolete. We don't need it anymore." That any court in the United States would publicly declare any portion of the Bill of Rights "obsolete" is enraging and greatly distressing.

There may be dozens of lawful legal arguments for limiting magazine size but a single state unilaterally declaring a portion of our founding federal documents obsolete is NOT a valid argument.

Boats · Feb 26, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
As was recently pointed out to me, the original Amendments that form the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by further Amendments. The first 10 Amendments cannot be repealed or further amended. The Bill of Rights stands on its own and cannot be changed.

Can you imagine if we had a Constitutional Convention where the population voted away their right to free speech and peaceable assembly? "Oh, that's obsolete. We don't need it anymore." That any court in the United States would publicly declare any portion of the Bill of Rights "obsolete" is enraging and greatly distressing.

There may be dozens of lawful legal arguments for limiting magazine size but a single state unilaterally declaring a portion of our founding federal documents obsolete is NOT a valid argument.

not to mention the preemptive clause that declares that federal law cannot be overridden by states. If federal law is based on the constitution, and federal law cannot be preempted, then the constitution cannot be preempted.

So, what part of Shall not be infringed is confusing?

dgapilot · Feb 26, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
As was recently pointed out to me, the original Amendments that form the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by further Amendments. The first 10 Amendments cannot be repealed or further amended. The Bill of Rights stands on its own and cannot be changed.

Can you imagine if we had a Constitutional Convention where the population voted away their right to free speech and peaceable assembly? "Oh, that's obsolete. We don't need it anymore." That any court in the United States would publicly declare any portion of the Bill of Rights "obsolete" is enraging and greatly distressing.

There may be dozens of lawful legal arguments for limiting magazine size but a single state unilaterally declaring a portion of our founding federal documents obsolete is NOT a valid argument.

I don’t believe there is any clause that prevents a future amendment from negating one of the first 10. That said, there has never been the will to do that. The Bill of Rights were part of the Great Compromise to get all the states to agree to sign on to the Constitution. Historically they were the bedrock of the social contract between government and the people. Unfortunately that bedrock is being eroded, and unfortunately, it seems that a growing number of the population prefer the security of government control to freedom of thought, expression and self determination.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

teratos · Feb 26, 2021

dgapilot said:
I don’t believe there is any clause that prevents a future amendment from negating one of the first 10. That said, there has never been the will to do that. The Bill of Rights were part of the Great Compromise to get all the states to agree to sign on to the Constitution. Historically they were the bedrock of the social contract between government and the people. Unfortunately that bedrock is being eroded, and unfortunately, it seems that a growing number of the population prefer the security of government control to freedom of thought, expression and self determination.

From an originalist perspective, the Constitution never would have been ratified if it were not for the Bill of Rights. The argument of those opposed to the BoR was that the 2A (and others) was understood to be a natural right and they did not see the need to include it because nobody would ever try to say that the Right to self-defense and defense against tyranny was not something The People had a Right to. Given that perspective, you can't overturn the 2A.

Frame the argument as a 1A argument and tell me you can overturn that.

dgapilot · Feb 26, 2021

teratos said:
From an originalist perspective, the Constitution never would have been ratified if it were not for the Bill of Rights. The argument of those opposed to the BoR was that the 2A (and others) was understood to be a natural right and they did not see the need to include it because nobody would ever try to say that the Right to self-defense and defense against tyranny was not something The People had a Right to. Given that perspective, you can't overturn the 2A.

Frame the argument as a 1A argument and tell me you can overturn that.

Believe me, I’m not for the overturning of any of the BoR, just trying to put it in the perspective of those that may. Doesn’t matter if it’s the first, second, fourth, fifth, or any of the first 10, all we need to look at is how Congress, the Judiciary, the States, they are all power hungry and seem to want to remove rights, and a portion of the population is fine with it in thinking they will gain some level of security by allowing government to control those rights. Pretty sick concept in my opinion, but that seems to be what many people want.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Feb 26, 2021

teratos said:
From an originalist perspective, the Constitution never would have been ratified if it were not for the Bill of Rights. The argument of those opposed to the BoR was that the 2A (and others) was understood to be a natural right and they did not see the need to include it because nobody would ever try to say that the Right to self-defense and defense against tyranny was not something The People had a Right to. Given that perspective, you can't overturn the 2A.

Frame the argument as a 1A argument and tell me you can overturn that.

"You can overturn that", even a 1A argument. While most of what you say is correct, but wee seem to be fast approaching a time where people see the rights in the Bill of Rights as archaic. Most of these rights are preexisting rights so simply repealing a amendment governing those rights may not change the right. It certainly is possible that a future amendment would not only repeal one of those amendments, but also actively negate the underlying right. The people shall not have the right to free speech nor have the right to keep and bear arms. It certainly is a possibility and a very scary one given todays environment.

Tungsten · Feb 26, 2021

Occam said:
And because nobody can be bothered to use freakin' Google to even check for well-publicized examples. But without even looking, I immediately recalled the 2019 case in Conyers, GA. Resident with AR15 vs. multiple assailants at 4:00AM in his front yard. Dumb yutes trying to be gangsta paid the ultimate stupid price.

Or how about the gent in TX who put a stop to a mass shooting spree including a church, grabbing his AR15 to do the defensive deed - perfect weapon for the distance at which he was shooting, too.

Anyone who says there are no examples isn't just not trying, you have to actually wonder if they're going out of their way to avoid easily found info.

Just of the top of my head I remember an incident his in his closet with an AK and shot the burglar at point blank range. Many examples are out there.

press1280 · Feb 26, 2021

I skimmed through the opinion and didn't see where they were challenging the law under the 2A, only the VT constitution?

CharlieFoxtrot · Feb 28, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
As was recently pointed out to me, the original Amendments that form the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed by further Amendments. The first 10 Amendments cannot be repealed or further amended. The Bill of Rights stands on its own and cannot be changed.

Interesting. Never heard that before. Maybe just a matter of semantics but you are not suggesting that one of the 10 original amendments can’t be modified or changed by a subsequent amendment are you?

teratos · Feb 28, 2021

jcutonilli said:
"You can overturn that", even a 1A argument. While most of what you say is correct, but wee seem to be fast approaching a time where people see the rights in the Bill of Rights as archaic. Most of these rights are preexisting rights so simply repealing a amendment governing those rights may not change the right. It certainly is possible that a future amendment would not only repeal one of those amendments, but also actively negate the underlying right. The people shall not have the right to free speech nor have the right to keep and bear arms. It certainly is a possibility and a very scary one given todays environment.

People often wonder when we start shooting. That’s when.

Unfortunately, upcoming generations are seemingly less interested in their freedoms and rights. They will vote themselves into totalitarianism.

High-capacity magazine ban goes before Vermont Supreme Court

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Broken Member

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

,

My hair is amazing

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics