No. It makes mention of other intentional infringements, but it does not rule on any of them..Does Bruen cover excessive sales tax on ammo?
No. It makes mention of other intentional infringements, but it does not rule on any of them..Does Bruen cover excessive sales tax on ammo?
They'll continue to do what they have been doing passing bills that they know to be unconstitutional but will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more and take years to challenge to the court system. Eventually if they do that enough they will bankrupt the second amendment advocacy groups and then there will be no one to fight on our side and at that point they can do whatever they want.Well they’re going to be tempted no matter what at this point.
It’s just what possible law could they pass to accomplish their objective (less public carry) and still have it be constitutional?
IMO they’re basically maxed out. Anything else they could add would get more and more ridiculous and would be smacked down quickly.
They can throw a nearly infinite number of rabidly unConstitutional bills at the citizenry, in every legislative session in every Dem-controlled state legislature.I don't know what more they could throw against the wall at this point, but who knows.
I was curious about the same thing.Are these cases not eligible for reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees if/when decided against the state? They're civil rights violations.
Sure, those fees would ultimately come from the pockets of ordinary citizens, but it wouldn't serve to bankrupt the foundations pursuing legal action. Between any fee relief, the methodical nature of the suits (suing when it's quite likely to win and set good precedent), and donations from pro-2A folks, I'd expect these foundations are not seriously aching for cash. Never flush, for sure. But not teetering on collapse, either.
Then again, I know nothing.
I suspect the Legislature has deftly protected itself from any attempt to lay the blame on lawmakers for their actions, however unConstitutional or reprehensible they may be.I was curious about the same thing.
I thought if a civil right was violated by the legislature, the plaintiffs could sue for damages and legal fees.
Indirectly see footnote 9 on page 30.Does Bruen cover excessive sales tax on ammo?
If the legislature is not careful they will end up with a Judge overseeing what they do and having to approve it. Look at the states that fought the civil rights judgements post Brown v Board of Education.I suspect the Legislature has deftly protected itself from any attempt to lay the blame on lawmakers for their actions, however unConstitutional or reprehensible they may be.
Look at the Dept of Justice, and the administration that gives it orders.If the legislature is not careful they will end up with a Judge overseeing what they do and having to approve it. Look at the states that fought the civil rights judgements post Brown v Board of Education.
If the case is won by our side, yes. But the amount rarely coms to what was actually spent on th case by our side.Are these cases not eligible for reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees if/when decided against the state? They're civil rights violations.
Sure, those fees would ultimately come from the pockets of ordinary citizens, but it wouldn't serve to bankrupt the foundations pursuing legal action. Between any fee relief, the methodical nature of the suits (suing when it's quite likely to win and set good precedent), and donations from pro-2A folks, I'd expect these foundations are not seriously aching for cash. Never flush, for sure. But not teetering on collapse, either.
Then again, I know nothing.
ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.I was curious about the same thing.
I thought if a civil right was violated by the legislature, the plantiffs could sue for damages and legal fees.
...but not violating a directive of the courts. At a minimum, the judge can hold them in contempt and issue a warrant for their arrest. I'm sure there might be a Sheriff or two willing to make the arrest.ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.
I'm certain there'd be no shortage of volunteers to be deputized to aid in the arrest....but not violating a directive of the courts. At a minimum, the judge can hold them in contempt and issue a warrant for their arrest. I'm sure there might be a Sheriff or two willing to make the arrest.
.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Well, its a little more complicated. All States can be sued under 1983 for prospective relief, viz., injunctive and declaratory relief, but not more damages. Damages are barred by the State's sovereign immunity. But injunctive relief is not as the suit is directed against the State official (e.g., the Governor) in his official capacity under Ex Parte Young. The theory being that soverneign immunity does not protect the state official acting unconstitutionally for purposes of prospective injunctive relief. Now, damages ARE available against municipalities under Monell. Why? Because the SCT held that any sovereign immunity of these subordinate gov. entities has been waived by Congress in enacting Section 1983. Clear as mud, I know.ALL Legislatures at every level are exempt from civil rights suits.
Where do we get to the ability to tar and feather?Well, its a little more complicated. All States can be sued under 1983 for prospective relief, viz., injunctive and declaratory relief, but not more damages. Damages are barred by the State's sovereign immunity. But injunctive relief is not as the suit is directed against the State official (e.g., the Governor) in his official capacity under Ex Parte Young. The theory being that soverneign immunity does not protect the state official acting unconstitutionally for purposes of prospective injunctive relief. Now, damages ARE available against municipalities under Monell. Why? Because the SCT held that any sovereign immunity of these subordinate gov. entities has been waived by Congress in enacting Section 1983. Clear as mud, I know.
THAT FOOTNOTE 9 shit was the death of me it is wat it is no way around it…
Bruen decision was 35 pages. Everyone wants you to believe Foot note 9 prevails.
Where do we get to the ability to tar and feather?
Waiting for an opinionAnd where does this sit now?