Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2017, 01:01 PM #231
StogieC's Avatar
StogieC StogieC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 5
StogieC StogieC is offline
Junior Member
StogieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcoachdoug View Post
I believe it only takes one justice to ask for it.. but I might be wrong... what say our legal eagle? :
Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
StogieC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:26 PM #232
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,703
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
Each Justice is assigned to oversee petitions submitted from the various jurisdictions of one or more circuit. Petitions from Florida, being in the 11th Cir., are referred to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Wish it would have been from Kennedy or Roberts. Thomas seems to be a shoe-in at this point.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017, 08:14 PM #233
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
A state can't charge a fee to exercise a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution. Stare Decisis....MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 06:42 AM #234
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 09:11 AM #235
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 387
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 10:48 AM #236
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,703
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
I don't think you understand the importance of there being an injured party for a certiorari to be granted. Who got arrested in that case?...The answer is, nobody did and in fact, they all paid the license fee without objection. That's a clear waiver of right, right there. Which then means that, nobody was exercising a constitutionally protected right and had that right violated by the state...There's the error which prevented certiorari. If the court is conducting themselves as you say they are, they will not take Norman...I believe they will. With that said, I do hope you're wrong.
The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 11:10 AM #237
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 387
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
Right, when you have courts ruling that it's not the job of the judiciary to second guess the legislatures, but of course ONLY when it comes to laws affecting guns, the 2nd Amendment protects nothing.
GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 02:58 PM #238
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlocksAndPatriots View Post
With all due respect, it doesn't do our side any favor for conservatives to make excuses for liberal malfeasance. Every case from the judiciary post MacDonald has been in bad faith. Period. Saying, "There was no injured party" or "It wasn't the right case" is just delusion.
Hardly delusional, you've got to know how to play the game...If the court doesn't take Norman, we clearly have a rogue court on our hands, as Norman was damaged(arrested) for exercising a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution.

U.S. Supreme Court
ASHWANDER v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (concurring)

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:


5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. 6 Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U. [297 U.S. 288, 348] * S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621 , 35 S.Ct. 140. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99 , 100 S., 51 S.Ct. 392. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 , 42 S.Ct. 274, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 , 43 S.Ct. 597, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 03:23 PM #239
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Then explain Kwong v de Blasio (a.k.a. Kwong v Bloomberg), and (much more importantly) why the Supreme Court denied cert there, rather than granting and reversing.

No, a fee can't be charged for the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right except when that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly the exceptional case as regards essentially every Constitutional rule in the book. It is, essentially, the only Constitutionally-protected right that is actually a privilege in nearly every way. That will remain the case until the composition on the Supreme Court substantially changes in our favor.

As of now, the 2nd Amendment basically protects nothing.
I would suggest that you read the 2CA decision. It seems self explanatory to me. "The Supreme Court's “fee jurisprudence” has historically addressed the constitutionality of fees charged by governmental entities on expressive activities protected by the First Amendment—such as fees charged to hold a rally or parade." It was determined that the fees did not exceed the costs so it was acceptable. It is the same public safety issue you see in other cases. It is not limited to the 2A. SCOTUS passed on the issue because it is not inconsistent with what it has said in the past on similar issues.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017, 03:33 PM #240
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The courts are trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you can't get standing to sue without paying for the license. On the other hand, you pay the fee so obviously you can afford it and weren't harmed.
You're mostly right,..the courts are not making it easy. Voluntarily signing an application for a license is a waiver of any rights that may be involved. One can contract(license application) away every right they have. The best option in that case would have been for someone to get arrested for not having the license. Of course you're not going to get anyone to do that if the penalty is a felony. We could easily find out just how rogue the court is by redoing Friedman v Highland Park...But with an actual damage with someone getting arrested for possessing an "assault weapon" for self-defense. It's a misdemeanor charge of up to 6mos in jail, so there is no lose of ones 2nd Amendment rights...I would volunteer to do that with financial support during time in jail. And if I were Wayne LaPierre, I'd do it on my own dime, but we all know what he's all about. The fact that we can't get any retired gun guy to do something along these lines, is pretty pathetic in a country of 300 million people...Pretty sad. So now we wait for a circuit split.


   
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service