Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[BeoBill]

Not sure they out finance us. GOA, SAF, NRA, etc. (not including straight up industry groups like the NSSF) collectively pull in hundreds of millions (likely billions) a year. On the other side, as an example, Everytown pulled in $109 million in donations in 2019. NRA alone took in $221 million in 2021. Its lowest in years. It was $367 million in 2016 at its highest (NRA revenue is about 40% from dues and donations).

Now, NRA spends a lot of its money on things other than lobbying and lawsuits. But so does Everytown.

The root of the problem is that the Media does not side with us as a rule. Nearly every newscast about every shooting (and most murders) is a way to demonize guns and the ability to own them. And those newscasts are the primary way that Joe and Jane Sixpack find out what's going on. And they form their opinions based on that propaganda. It's been this way since -0- was installed. Also, Bloomberg also has his own news outlet, which is a BIG help for his Oligarchy.

The saving grace for our side is Social Media, which is the "New MSM". That's the only space where we have a shot at changing minds and gaining converts...

 

[coinboy]

That NY law was still more than 50 years after reconstruction. Which is why it cannot be considered. Please read his opinion again. Your interpretation is not what he said. Laws before the 14th was ratified can be considered for THT, they just hold less weight than when BoR was incorporated.

I disagree.

 

[coinboy]

My understanding is that laws up until 1869 can reinforce, but not contradict THT from 1781. Is this correct from your reading?

Agree.

 

[lazarus]

My understanding is that laws up until 1869 can reinforce, but not contradict THT from 1781. Is this correct from your reading?

If something from the founding contradicts a later law yes. However if no founding law addresses something and one from, say 1820 exits, it can be used. That’s roughly what Thomas implies in his opinion.

Either way, if I am right or wrong, and I think he wrote Bruen pretty clearly, we will find out over the coming year or two.

Either way, there is little up till 1868 for gun control. And most of it is racist crap or territorial that Bruen and the court are clear would be tossed.

 

[coinboy]

If something from the founding contradicts a later law yes. However if no founding law addresses something and one from, say 1820 exits, it can be used. That’s roughly what Thomas implies in his opinion.

Either way, if I am right or wrong, and I think he wrote Bruen pretty clearly, we will find out over the coming year or two.

Either way, there is little up till 1868 for gun control. And most of it is racist crap or territorial that Bruen and the court are clear would be tossed.

I agree with this.

 

[ras_oscar]

1868 is too late and past the founding era from what I understand.

When exactly is the cutoff is anyone's guess but I like the idea of 1836 when the last founding father, Madison died.

I think part of the reason for the cutoff was also to exclude Jim Crow era laws intended to limit the rights of recently freed slaves

 

[E.Shell]

The root of the problem is that the Media does not side with us as a rule. Nearly every newscast about every shooting (and most murders) is a way to demonize guns and the ability to own them. And those newscasts are the primary way that Joe and Jane Sixpack find out what's going on. And they form their opinions based on that propaganda. It's been this way since -0- was installed before 95% of us were born. Also, Bloomberg also has his own news outlet, which is a BIG help for his Oligarchy.

The saving grace for our side is Social Media, which is the "New MSM". That's the only space where we have a shot at changing minds and gaining converts...

F.I.F.Y... I agree with almost all of your post, but just had to correct that one little thing.

Most of us, save the very eldest (and I'm not even sure about them), have been lied to by the media and federal government all of our lives. This is NOT a new thing just since Hussein was installed. We have always had mainstream media "programming".

We "had to go" to Korea, we "had to go" to Vietnam, we "had to go" to Iraq, we "have to support" (the corrupt and money laundering) Ukraine, and will probably "have to go" there too at some point. Otherwise, the military/industrial complex will not prosper, our politicians cannot get rich and our patriotic, conscientious and capable military-age males cannot be safely culled or neutered.

Look at how they behave while we still have most of our guns but are afraid/reluctant to use them. Just think how they'll behave when they get the rest of the guns "off the street" (away from the citizens). We "have to do something" about 'gun violence'...

 

[sbmike]

Unfortunately, there are no consequences for MGAs and/or governors who knowingly flaunt SCOTUS decisions by passing new bills that restate what SCOTUS has overturned previously, as has happened post-Bruen in MD. Until there are real consequences, we are going to continue this unending loop, and why not? We are seeing it more and more.
People found in contempt of Congress, like Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, was not prosecuted because the DA who would have prosecuted the case worked for Holder. Well, duh! And so it goes with so many legal cases anymore. You can be legally right and still lose everything to bottomless government and large corporation pocket books.

 

[Bob A]

I think part of the reason for the cutoff was also to exclude Jim Crow era laws intended to limit the rights of recently breed slaves

It would seem that current Maryland "Commoners" would fall into a category similarly treated.

F.I.F.Y... I agree with almost all of your post, but just had to correct that one little thing.

Most of us, save the very eldest (and I'm not even sure about them), have been lied to by the media and federal government all of our lives. This is NOT a new thing just since Hussein was installed. We have always had mainstream media "programming".

We "had to go" to Korea, we "had to go" to Vietnam, we "had to go" to Iraq, we "have to support" (the corrupt and money laundering) Ukraine, and will probably "have to go" there too at some point. Otherwise, the military/industrial complex will not prosper, our politicians cannot get rich and our patriotic, conscientious and capable military-age males cannot be safely culled or neutered.

Eisenhower was sufficiently freaked out by the "Military-Industrial Complex" which he named and called out in his farewell from office speech for it to have been a serious concern in 1960.

From my own memory, I can attest that the government has been overbearing from the middle 1950s; they were a little more circumspect back then, but the population was far less fragmented, and far less worried about governmental overreach at that time. (Most of my memories froom the 1950s have to do with state (NY) and local government).

Certainly by the late 1960s, local draft boards had no problem culling certain populations, and protecting others. Pity the Founders didn't see far enough ahead in their opposition to standing armies; universal service requirements for voters, a la Heinlein, would have been an interesting and possibly useful mechanism. I suppose the politicians over time could have nullified it, as they have removed other protections in order to secure and retain power.

 

[BeoBill]

 

[JohnnyE]

Before I click on the vid, what's it about?

 

[BeoBill]

tl;dr: Facebook is, has been and will continue to harvest and sell your data.

 

[Bob A]

Before I click on the vid, what's it about?

Explains how facebook alters the nature and content of the information it displays, how it blatantly supports - and brags about - affecting political outcomes of elections, how disfavored points of view are suppressed, and how the suppression is hidden from content providers, how it actively promotes "social justice" themes, and on and on.

It is a total propaganda tool, whose control of information is complete, and completely disguised.

But you probably already suspected that. Apparently, most folks are unaware of its nature and extent.

Meanwhile, it knows all about you, and is happy to sell what it knows to whomever wants to pay for it, as long as their political bent aligns with Herr Goebbels - oops, I misspelled Zuckerberg there.

 

[Apd09]

Before I click on the vid, what's it about?

Vaguebooking is annoying isn’t it?

If you’re gonna post a link you should explain what it is and why someone should click on it.
Or people who say things like “I’m tired of those who say they care showing their true colors when things don’t go their way” if you’re gonna post something then say it, don’t just put something out there with no context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnnyE]

Explains how facebook alters the nature and content of the information it displays, how it blatantly supports - and brags about - affecting political outcomes of elections, how disfavored points of view are suppressed, and how the suppression is hidden from content providers, how it actively promotes "social justice" themes, and on and on.

It is a total propaganda tool, whose control of information is complete, and completely disguised.

But you probably already suspected that. Apparently, most folks are unaware of its nature and extent.

Meanwhile, it knows all about you, and is happy to sell what it knows to whomever wants to pay for it, as long as their political bent aligns with Herr Goebbels - oops, I misspelled Zuckerberg there.

Sadly so many people are gullible and believe what it put in front of them, being too unintelligent and/or uneducated to tell the difference.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution the future increasingly belongs to the most intelligent. The growth of the information age and now AI ironically isn't relieving burdens, it's increasing them. Only the most intelligent and capable will have meaningful work, and be able to filter fact from fiction. Those unable to keep up will be manipulated and serve as mere drones.

 

[Allen65]

Sadly so many people are gullible and believe what it put in front of them, being too uneducated to tell the difference.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution the future increasingly belongs to the most intelligent. The growth of the information age and now AI ironically isn't relieving burdens, it's increasing them. Only the most intelligent and capable will have meaningful work, and be able to filter fact from fiction. Those unable to keep up will be manipulated and serve as mere drones.

You're too much of an optimist. Intelligence won't be protection from unemployment. Any profession that revolves around applying known sets of rules to problems will be at risk from AI. Drafting and reviewing of contracts, engineering of structures, medical diagnoses, and lots of other professional services will be much cheaper and probably more reliable, when conducted by well-trained, experienced AI.

Even creative jobs will be at risk because add a bit of randomness to AI decision making within the rule set, and viola, you have creativity.

I'm not sure there will be much use for meat drones, either. Computer-controlled electromechanical materiel-handling equipment with haptic feedback works 24/7 and never gets sick or slacks off.

It's tough to make a business case against adoption of AI technology, because it allows for goods to be produced more reliably and for less cost, and can provide expert services with higher accuracy at lower cost, too. The only jobs that will be truly protected are those where there is a legal requirement for human action or review, and those aren't exactly the highest productivity elements of the workforce already.

 

[JohnnyE]

You're too much of an optimist. Intelligence won't be protection from unemployment. Any profession that revolves around applying known sets of rules to problems will be at risk from AI. Drafting and reviewing of contracts, engineering of structures, medical diagnoses, and lots of other professional services will be much cheaper and probably more reliable, when conducted by well-trained, experienced AI.

Even creative jobs will be at risk because add a bit of randomness to AI decision making within the rule set, and viola, you have creativity.

I'm not sure there will be much use for meat drones, either. Computer-controlled electromechanical materiel-handling equipment with haptic feedback works 24/7 and never gets sick or slacks off.

It's tough to make a business case against adoption of AI technology, because it allows for goods to be produced more reliably and for less cost, and can provide expert services with higher accuracy at lower cost, too.

Agreed. I was attempting to identify those who have some sort of chance of success. In my family, engineering, law, education and retail store ownership have paid the bills and are all at risk.

 

[JPG]

Armed Scholars review of the oral arguments

 

[Bob A]

Armed Scholars review of the oral arguments

It's so delightful to hear that the judges in the panel actually laughed at the MD State's Attorney's arguments. (Well, at least two of them did).

What will MD do now? Push back again and get slapped down by SCOTUS and have Frosh's name attached forever to a landmark pro-2A decision? Or crawl back into their orifices and lick their briefs, whining and groveling at the feet of Soros and Bloomberg?

Send more lawyers and money, the guns have hit the fan!

 

[357Max]