- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
There are no arguments that can persuade people whose minds are made up. Until the Supreme Court takes a case and rules that this rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny isn't going to fly, this will continue.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.s...lawmakers_look_to_fix_high_capacity_maga.html
This is an older article on the NJ ban that discusses the absence of an exception for off-duty LEOs (a since-eliminated "oversight"). I shared the link for the beautiful quote from a police chief wherein he states that an exception must be created for off-duty LEOs so that "they can defend themselves." That's just magnificent stuff. I hate all of this.
No, we lose cases because the judges have no intention on doing their jobs.
VA tech was perpetrated by a 9mm and a .22. It is my understanding that most of the magazines used were 10 rounds. He racked up quite the body count at a COLLEGE. Against ADULTS. We know that magazine capacity has very little to do with body counts. Hell, I bet you could do the same thing with a pump shotgun that holds 3 as long as you had a pocket full of shells.
I am not sure if you are disputing what I said or agreeing with it. I have looked through the plaintiffs opening brief and to not see anything specifically related to the VA Tech shooting.
The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?
Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.
SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?
The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?
Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.
SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?
Judges opinions are judgements that have serious repercussions. Different judges reach different opinions based on the same arguments they can't all be right. As a lay person it would seem to me the proper level of scrutiny applied to similar cases should be a slam dunk based on hundreds of years of precedent in thousands of settled cases yet what I am seeing is judges shaping scrutiny to achieve predetermined verdicts. And different judges shape scrutiny in different ways. A law is either Constitutional or it isn't and all the "inalienable rights" are equal and should be treated the same in the courts.
Aren't judges supposed to be unbiased arbitrators of the laws as enacted, right or wrong good or bad? Shouldn't judges who allow personal feelings to color their judgement be held accountable by their fellow professionals? If doctors are "protected" by the system, and LEO's by the blue line, what is protecting judges... the black line?
Why should how a case is argued have any bearing on what the facts are and what the laws say as enacted by the legislature. I know it is wishful thinking on my part but isn't it the way the system is supposed to work - laws passed - enforced by police - judged based on facts - without bias at any level; it has been a long time since I took civics but that is how I remembered it.
The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?
Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.
SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?
It is not really for the court to determine what "reasonably fits the State's interest in public safety". The court is there to determine if there is sufficient evidence that "reasonably fits the State's interest in public safety". It is the plaintiff's job to poke holes in their evidence. Instead of poking holes in the State's evidence they chose to provide other evidence.
The court did not simply use the legislative finding, there were correlations and anecdotes demonstrating the findings. Instead of demonstrating why these correlations and anecdotes were not causation, the plaintiffs chose to use use other correlations and anecdotes.
The State says "large capacity magazines" were present in a lot of mass shootings. While this is technically correct, it does nothing to determine if the states hypothesis is correct. The plaintiffs do not demonstrate that if the magazines in these cases were replaced with 10 round magazines the results would have been the same in almost all cases.
They present anecdotes on how changing a magazine helped a few people. IT certainly gives a hypothetical benefit. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate why these are exceptions and not the rule.
We lose these cases because they are poorly argued.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
So how many are still in Maryland today and how many on the street that fit NOT banned category of AR?The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s — one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law — in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.
But why does SCOTUS throw the 2A cases like a hot potato but not with other enumerated rights? That is the problem. They are letting the lower courts run roughshod over the 2A. The 2A is the only one where they question what it means. All they need to do is look at all the rough drafts of the 2A. It plainly talks about the people having the right without infringement.. They trimmed it to not be verbose. As such, like people twisting the Bible to fit their wants and needs, Judges and people do the same with the 2A. They are slowly starting to do it with the others. Public Safety is used as a weapon to hit 2A people over the head. BS!!. Here is Public Safety...choke on a six sided purple thingy.
The problem is that with other rights the exceptions are rare/limited. With the 2A the exceptions are not. More than 2/3 of murders are committed with a firearm. They are also used in other crimes such as rape and robbery.
I suspect that the exceptions for the other rights tend to error on the public safety side of things just like 2A issues. The curtailment of these other rights do not appear to be as bad simply because it does not happened with the regularity that public safety issues happen that affect the 2A.
Another issue is how the case gets argued. This case gets argued as its my right and the issue is not a bad as the state says. You never really here about the societal benefits because it is all about the individual right. The judge looks at the evidence and sees that there is not a strong reason why you need that particular item and there are other avenues where you can still exercise your rights. It does not appear to the judge that the right is really being infringed upon. The judge does not here the negative societal implications of what is being banned. They only the states positive spin on the societal implications. The plaintiffs also fail to argue why the state should not be the sole provider and if the state really protects individuals (limits of the states public safety obligations).
I am sure there are other issues also.
When judges and politicians choose to become domestic enemies of our constitution by supporting unconstitutional infringements and gun bans, there really needs to be some accountability and consequences.
The problem is that with other rights the exceptions are rare/limited. With the 2A the exceptions are not. More than 2/3 of murders are committed with a firearm. They are also used in other crimes such as rape and robbery.
Exactly, not to mention the bow and arrow. The entire "weapons of war" statement is a profoundly specious red herring."Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Just about every firearm used today can be directly linked to a weapon of war.
The Framers planned for that. Unfortunately, it’s the 2A.